Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radha Madhav Dham


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball   Watcher  22:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Radha Madhav Dham

 * – ( View AfD View log )

New organization. Not notable. Ism schism (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Can you please explain why you've stubbed the article and removed 40 references ? The organization does not seem to be new - only the name. -- Neil N   talk to me  02:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Those references referred to an organization that does not exist anymore. This is a different subject. It might become notable some day, but that is speculation. At present the subject is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply They claim to be the same organization that was founded in 1990, so they are the same organization. You are confusing a name change with the creation of a new organization. The old references are still valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.227.177 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The temple/ashram doesn't become any less notable because it's name was changed. All references to its notability were deleted. It was founded in 1990 using the old name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.44.186 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Its not a name change - it a new organization with a new leader and is not notable for anything. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Then this should be undone and the original article kept. -- Neil N   talk to me  13:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That is untrue that it is a new organization with a new leader - . The leader is the same as it has always been - Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj. The only thing new about the organization is its new name and new governing body. Its also untrue that it is not notable for anything - if it was notable for anything before, it is still notable . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.227.177 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The nominator's rationale and comments appear to be based on  opinion. If the former temple  was dissolved and its  management, owners, community  and followers and worshipers have all gone elsewhere, and perhaps even the buildings razed to the ground, the temple under its former name is nevertheless not  less notable following  its closure, and the redirect should be undone. If,  however, the same followers and  from  the local  or regional  Hindu  communities continue to  use the complex and worship  there, then there is a very  strong  argument for for keeping  the article as a simple page move following  its change of name, management  and guru. The matter to  be debated is what  in  the Hindu philosophy constitutes a temple? Its complex of buildings, its guru, or its worshipers? These are issues that  should be examined and discussed on  the relevant talk  pages towards retention  of one, the other, or both  articles, and neither article should be summarily dismissed as a possible candidates for redirect  or deletion. The criterion is 'verifiability not  truth' and AfD is probably  not not  the best  place for such  discussion. My  suggestion, failing  an outcome through  discussion  and reliable sources for the temple under its new name, is to  undo  the redirect and page move, and redirect Radha Madhav Dham to  the former article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the nominators rationale is based on incomplete information, and his opinion is moot considering that the temple itself has explained the situation via a press release, which says that its the same temple using a new name. Their website says that Radha Madhav Dham was established in 1990 (21 years before it was called Radha Madhav Dham) and a press release from the temple has announced the name change and the new governing body, but same owner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.227.177 (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The more pertinent question is what is wikipedia's policy on name changes. Can you use the old sources, if they are talking about the same organization or institution, but using an old name. For example, some of the sources show that Barsana Dham is one of the largest Hindu temples in the US - it hasn't reduced in size because of the name change. Most of the sources in the old article refer to the same thing (the same temple and ashram) - can they be used to refer to the same temple and ashram after a name change? That is a valid question, but is a delete page the place to discuss that? For the time being I am going to revert the stubbed article and add back the 40 references deleted by the the delete nominator. If anyone disagrees with this, let me know and say why.
 * Comment A re-direct to the old article may be argued for (it hasn't so far), except that the organization is now using the new name and publicizing it. The public and media will be looking for information on Radha Madhav Dham, and wikipedia would be the first place to go to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.227.177 (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This topic is also being discussed on the "Editor Assistance" page of wikipedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.63.149 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The person who tagged this page for deletion also placed a tag "This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information". I don't think an article with 43 reliable and verifiable sources warrants that tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.233.219 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator is operating from an incorrect assertion. And I agree that tag should go; the article is well sourced. oknazevad (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Please explain, what assertion are you talking about? The sources listed have nothing to do with with article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply I have re-looked at the sources, and they have *only* got to do with the article, albeit using the old name 'Barsana Dham' rather than "Radha Madhav Dham". So, to say that they have "nothing to do with the article" is blatantly false, because it is opposite to what the text in those sources say. Furthermore, a good majority of the sources are about the "Shree Raseshwari Radha Rani" temple, which is the temple at Radha Madhav Dham and Barsana Dham. The name of the temple hasn't changed . And it hasn't got any less notable than it was 2 weeks ago, just because of a name change. Your false assertion that Radha Madhav Dham is a new organization and non-notable has been invalidated as I pointed out a few times, and as Oknazevad correctly pointed out. As I showed, its a 21 years old organization and the article has 43 verifiable and very reliable sources. If you can cite any solid reasons why the article should be deleted, you are free to do so, as well as citing the relevent wikipedia policies to back it up, but I don't think you have given any valid reason up till now, except your incorrect initial assertion. I am assuming that you have valid, wikipedia-policy-driven reasons to want this article to be deleted, and don't have a personal bias against it. 86.40.233.219 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Further to my  comment and suggestions  above, and following further research, the temple complex has not  been demolished, and still  attracts worshipers from  the same local  and regional  Hindu communities. This is a simple renaming  only, and the article has been correctly  renamed, keeping  it content  and references intact. Further updating  may  be required, but  my  conclusion is 'keep'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Kudpung กุดผึ้ง and a "what were you thinking?" to Ism schism for almost demolishing a perfectly valid article. -- Neil N   talk to me  04:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This organization is clearly the same as (or a successor of) the previous one, and it's unclear how the nominator missed that when researching the topic, as required by WP:BEFORE. This article should be kept and restored, and this debate closed. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Where is the proof that it is the same? Until this is provided, there is no reason to keep the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Ism schism, have you read anything posted above?! There is no need for me, or anyone else to keep posting proof that has already been provided over and over again. Looking at your history, although you have done some good work on wikipedia, I believe most of your motivation lies along sectarian lines and although I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have wikipedia-policy-driven motivations, at the moment you appear to be trolling. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.32.122 (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Can you answer my question? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply I already did. The answer is in one of the posts above. Read through the discussion above, and the wikipedia page, when you have finished trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.32.122 (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Your statements need to be backed by reliable sources. It is not too much to ask for these - and your sources have yet to back up your statements. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ism schism, notability is not temporary. Even though the New York Yankees moved out of Yankee Stadium a few years ago and the complex was demolished, does not mean that we delete the article. -- Neil N    talk to me  22:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Its not to much to ask, Ism schism, but you could have asked before hastily nominating the article for deletion. And it has already been discussed above - this is a discussion *page*, whereas you seem to think that each discussion starts from the beginning each time you post here. The ashram's press release explains everything . The press release announced the new governing body and the name change. For you to claim that it is a new organization, you would have to provide evidence that contradicts their own press release, as well as state who was the ashram sold to etc. Radha Madhav Dham is being run by the same organization as Barsana Dham - Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat, not a new owner, as you are implying. A new governing body and name change does not make it a new organization, and the temple/ashram is no less notable than it was a few weeks ago. If it was one of the largest Hindu temples in the USA 2 weeks ago, it still is. In the same way, all the sources about Barsana Dham are relevant to Radha Madhav Dham - same Guru, same organization, same congregation, same buildings - different managing committee and name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.32.122 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 *  Neil N , I will not argue with you about the New York Yankees. There is no proof that this is the same organization, and the notability is questionable at best. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well its the same organization unless you can provide evidence which states otherwise. I could claim that any organization I didn't like was somehow new, and request its page to be deleted - but as you know, that would not be a valid argument for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.32.122 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note One of the main questions seems to be whether this is the creation of Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, or a new entity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Swami Prakashanand Saraswati built the temple in 1990, as the Radha Madhav Dham article correctly states, but the temple has been managed by various succession of Presidents, none of whom were Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. What is new is that 2 weeks ago, it started being run by a managing committee rather than an individual president, and the name change. But it is still being run by the same international organization as Barsana Dham - Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.32.122 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Do you have reliable sources that confirm this information? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply I have provided sources that its being run by Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat and that a new committee is managing the affairs of an organization that was founded in 1990, whose name has changed a few weeks ago. There might be more sources out there if you were willing to look; and I can't argue that the page couldn't be improved - most wikipedia pages have room for improvement. But it has been established that the premise of your deletion nomination was incorrect.
 * Keep: You don't delete an artcile just because the subject's name needs to be changed, you just fix it. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply It is not a simple name change - where is the proof of this? What reliable sources back up this statement? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source I saw was this press release, clearly showing the transition. Have you had a look at this source? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Please note - Barsana Dham Ashram, Once Home to Wanted Felon Guru Prakashanand Saraswati, Changes Name and Appoints a New Leader -- Another Accused Rapist. This is a different organization. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have rather good comprehension skill and I find this statement in the blog referenced: "The new leader in charge of the ashram's rebranding is Kripalu Maharaj." It is a blog howvere so not a RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The ashram's old website (which was almost 10 years old) listed Kripaluji Maharaj as the spiritual leader, so that blog is 100% unfactual, and it is not a reputable source, although it agrees with me that it is the same organization, who have given themselves a new name. Why did you ask for proof that it is a simple name change, when that proof has already been provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.32.122 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Press release appears to clinch this for a clear 'keep': '...over 50,000 visitors a year' didn't just happen  since the name change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2011 (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.