Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranchora Dasa


 * 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   no consensus. some coverage, not deep coverage. tedder (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ranchora Dasa

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

Non notable, four year old article, with no reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * delete - NN no RS not even primary sources - Not a leader in ISKCON and never was notable in the sect or outside, support jas. Wikid as&#169; 03:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:GNG. No evidence this person has been the subject of coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party sources. — Satori Son 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Rewrote the article, added sources. Looks like his books have been the subject of coverage by several RS.--Gaura79 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I looked at the sources you added, but I don't see that at all. Maybe there's some coverage of the publications, but the "subject of"? Not even close. — Satori Son 15:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Comment Keep: The mention in Cults appears to be more than trivial and Ranchor Dasa/Prime gets mention though not coverage in several books. Many of his books are published by notable presses. While that is not evidence for notability itself it does mean the author is likely to be a subject of interest to the public. Again, not a notability point in itself but the present Wikipedia seems biased towards keeping articles about subjects that are of interest rather than being truly notable per WP:N. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 18:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The following is an additional note related to my switch from "Comment" to "Keep": I don't see that WP:GNG requires multiple sources and specifically allows for one secondary source with "Multiple sources are generally preferred." Ranchor Prime is interviewed about himself on NPR (see Transcript: Ranchor Prime in the references). While that interview is on line WP:V does not require that things be verifiable on line. The existing citations are detailed enough that the source books can be located. Per the article cites, Ranchor Prime is covered in at least Cults (p. 113), Belief, Bounty, and Beauty (pp. 389-390), and Philosophical questions (pp. 205-206). There are other sources in the reference lists meaning that at least his work is being recognized. Unfortunately, WP:GNG does not provide definitions of "significant" vs. "trivial" other than a 360 page book dedicated to a subject is significant and one sentence is trivial. With the latter two books I just mentioned it's clear from the on-line snippets they are citing and quoting his work and it's not known from the snippets if and how much they are covering the author. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Although the article has been expanded, it should still be deleted as Satori Son stated - per "WP:V and WP:GNG. No evidence this person has been the subject of coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party sources." As such, the article still merits a Delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:13, 17 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.