Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravindra Svarupa 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   keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. Sources have been found that appear to have established the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ravindra Svarupa Dasa

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not referenced article about a non-notable individual. No sufficient evidence that this person has met the minimum requirements for inclusion. (User) Mb (Talk) 17:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep Links above give sufficient references to his works being cited in WP:RS to back up his notability. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you both work for the same company: him and Cinosaur, thus you are anxious to keep him on. Anyone who is impartial that can cast a vote? BTW there is no way to suggest that just because someone is being "cited" he is passing the bar. -- (User) Mb (Talk) 10:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we please steer clear of guesswork and go by the rules here? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that you and User:Gaura79 work in the same company cannot be discarded if this vote to be taken seriously in this case, because this person clearly does not meet the required level of coverage to write anything more than two sentences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cinosaur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gaura79 --(User) Mb (Talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued as to what exactly the above links to special contributions of User:Gaura79 and mine were supposed to reveal, but, again, guessing about personal identities is not helpful for Wikipedia discussions, and may even be in violation of WP:NPA. However, editors are most welcome to take their suspicions to WP:COIN as they feel fit. But what cannot be discarded here is the fact that the person in question is referred to in WP:RS as a leading reformist of ISKCON and a prominent religious scholar, , , , , ,  who spearheaded the reform movement that significantly shaped ISKCON's governance in 1980s and whose stance on the position of gurus, women, and GBC within ISKCON often formed official attitudes towards these key issues. That is, he is notable per WP:ANYBIO  as having "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment : Please keep the discussion on the merits or demerits of the article. Thank you. Pmresource (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Found numerous sources in Google Scholar. T. Miller 1991, 31 citations, When prophets die: the postcharismatic fate of new religious movements and M. Ekstrand 2004, 15 citations, The Hare Krishna Movement: the postcharismatic fate of a religious transplant among many. Pmresource (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep numerous sources state that the subject is a notable religious leader. In addition, his academic works have been published by many notable publishers. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:31, 3 November 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.