Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krsna in Krsna Consciousness


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. JForget 22:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Krishna in Krishna Consciousness was already redirected to International Society for Krishna Consciousness prior to closure. -- JForget 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Krsna in Krsna Consciousness

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Way too much detail of part of the Krishna Consciousness belief system. All references from Krishna Consciousness sources. ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The page was previously created as Lord Krishna in Krishna Consciousness which was then redirected by another editor. Also Bhagavad Gita in Krishna Consciousness, Lord Shri Rama in Krishna Consciousness by the same editor, PRODded, contested and redirected; there must be a few more such pages that were redirected. I remember seeing a few like these on the PROD log, not expressing an opinion on the article at this time. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason :

And, also

To extend on the above, the articles have extensive detail at the point where, if it was a fiction article, it could be deleted for being "in-universe". No analysis or external sources, just a presentation of "the truth". I can see where a summary of some of these could go into the International Society for Krishna Consciousness article, but not at this level of detail. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would personally prefer to keep, because I like the idea of having so much detail in articles. However, if not, much of this information should certainly go in the ISKCON article. Academic Challenger (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to International Society for Krishna Consciousness. All very badly written, one cannot WP:VERIFY any of the data, as not one in-line reference. To keep would require a complete rewrite to obtain WP:STYLE, and even then WP:NOTE may still be in doubt.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. No valid references, personal essay style, wrong place for such content. Any such information, if it were ever to be validly and encyclopedicly written (and with reliable inline sources), should go into the ISKCON article. Priyanath talk 23:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. References are of not for anything in any of the articles.  Merge information into Krishna Consciousness if there's anything worth salvaging.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. -Falcon8765 (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. It appears to be a synthesis, and the tone is that of a discourse, not an article. An option is to userfy one article and let the editor work on it before getting it to main space if notable enough for one. At present the articles don't appear to be anything more than content that belongs within International Society for Krishna Consciousness, but not really merge worthy. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all, as unencyclopedic POV in-universe essays sourced from non-RS websites. In addition, there are copyright violation concerns; for example a random check shows that:
 * The following paragraph in Krsna in Krsna Consciousness is copied verbatim from an Bhaktivedanta Book Trust website:
 * The list in the Krishna's Lila Avatars or Kalpa Avatarssection is copied in toto from | this website
 * Note that encyclopedic articles on some of the topics (say, ISKCON's view of Krishna) can possibly be justified and written based on third-party sources; however these article titles and content don't provide a useful start and are not worth retaining. Abecedare (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that encyclopedic articles on some of the topics (say, ISKCON's view of Krishna) can possibly be justified and written based on third-party sources; however these article titles and content don't provide a useful start and are not worth retaining. Abecedare (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete Appears to be a bunch of forks.Pectoretalk 15:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. One sentence about each in the ISKCON article will be sufficient (and they must be referenced). &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article not only unsourced and does not meet notability criteria, it is also grosly misrepresentative of the views it claims to represent, while using copyrighted material as well. In fact is should be speedy deleted due to copyvio. WP:SNOWBALL - do not wait. Wikid as&#169; 06:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That, too. And a perfectly matched set of them. Priyanath talk 23:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all as essays and copyvio. In addition, the author of the ten articles mentioned in this AfD also created another ten articles of the same kind which have since been redirected to International Society for Krishna Consciousness (just like Krishna in Krishna Consciousness above); while these redirects don't harm anybody it's questionable whether they are plausible search terms or mistypings for Int Soc for Krishna Consciousness. The ten redirects are listed below:

--bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.