Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja


 * 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. Stacking a discussion with obvious socks advancing novel i terpretations of policy is .... Not a great way to win a debate. Finding good sources and defending them is better but the sources advanced here have all effectively been refuted. Spartaz Humbug! 05:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A recreation of Bhaktivedanta Narayana/Bhaktivedanta Narayana Goswami, which was deleted for the fourth time in 2010.

From a quick scan of the non-primary sources, I don't see how the guru in question has increased in notability since 2010 (particularly since he died that year), though I'm happy to be proven wrong. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources in the article are all written by a disciple of Narayana's, a Swami Madhava, with the only semi-independent ref (#19) coming from the defunct Vaishnava News Network (although even that looks like a reprinted press release submitted by another disciple). Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Vaisnava News Network is not defunct - it has changed URL.
 * The archive of the old VNN.org articles is on their new page, here:
 * http://vaishnava-news-network.org/vaisnava-news/vnn-legacy-pages/
 * ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Formatting added by 


 * Comment ~ Dear Dasanudasa - Actually his notability is on the increase, as it is his Centennial celebration next year. Please find over 4000 of his audio lectures and 2000 videos of him here: http://srilanarayanmaharaja.com/archive-project-info/ . I cannot see why someone not 'notable' would have such an archive published online. ShyamDasUK 22.00, 01 October 2020 (BST)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 11:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep An article on the life of a notable Gaudiya Vaisnava philosopher and scholar whose books are in libraries all over the globe, whose works are cited by eminent religious studies scholars, and who continues to be the subject of academic study by others since his passing in 2010 should certainly be retained on Wikipedia. The subject certainly meets the notability criteria under "Any biography" and "Academics" at WP:ANYBIO. As a new editor on Wikipedia, I didn't recognize the importance of citing secondary sources but have included many that meet the requirements of WP:BASIC after the recommendation for deletion. A few commenters have repeated the arguments of the individual who recommended for deletion without checking the provenance of the academic sources cited. For example, please check the chapter by Irvin H. Collins (http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-hare-krishna-movement/9780231122566) which is solely dedicated to analyzing the relationship between the subject and another religious organization, and kindly follow the guidelines of WP:BEFORE. KundalataDasi (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

— KundalataDasi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The original closing decision to delete appears like an attack without reason that ignores provided evidence. Request for deletion ignores multiple valid resources. Source-of-inspiration (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC) — Source-of-inspiration (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep *Comment Request for deletion disregards valid evidence of existence and does not provide clear evidence of lack of spirituality of guru. Source-of-inspiration (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC) — Source-of-inspiration (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep *Comment Request for deletion does not include valid reason for deletion as seen here Source-of-inspiration (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC) — Source-of-inspiration (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The page was previously deleted on the criterion of lack of notability.


 * Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja was a world-famous guru & scholar who has 294 publications available in 7 languages


 * (English, Hindi, Bengali, German, Spanish, Russian & Dutch). The list of his publications, all downloadable, is here:


 * http://www.purebhakti.com/resources/ebooks-magazines/bhakti-books


 * His author page on Amazon.com is here:


 * https://www.amazon.com/Sri-Srimad-Bhaktivedanta-Narayana-Gosvami-Maharaja/e/B00RIWCH3Q


 * and a search of his name yields 208 results:


 * https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Bhaktivedanta+Narayana+Maharaja


 * I think there are much less notable & prolific authors than this who have Wikipedia pages. ShyamDasUK (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja has 5 official websites, at least 6 websites dedicated to him by others in English, and at least 16 websites dedicated to him in 9 other languages (ENG, GER, PT, SP, RUS, POL, FR, IT, Dutch). There are at least 6 Facebook pages dedicated to him, video channels showing him leading pilgrimages of thousands of people, 4000 audio lectures and 2000 videos of him speaking. There are also hundreds if not thousands of photographs of him available. All the above is in the covered section below (Click 'Show'). ShyamDasUK (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Official websites of Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja:
 * http://www.purebhakti.com/


 * http://www.bhaktibooks.info/


 * http://www.bhaktiprojects.org/


 * https://bhaktistore.com/


 * https://gvpbookdistribution.com/


 * The following pages are dedicated to him:


 * http://srilanarayanmaharaja.com/


 * http://musicofyoga.com/


 * http://purebhakti.tv/


 * http://www.kirtaniyas.com/


 * http://bvmlu.org/SBNM/index.htm


 * http://sbnmcd.org/


 * Those are just some of the ones in English.
 * Here is a list of websites dedicated to His Holiness Narayana Maharaja in 9 other languages:


 * German:
 * https://harekrischna.de/


 * Portuguese:
 * http://presentesinigualaveis.blogspot.com/p/acervo-devocional.html
 * http://gvebrasil.blogspot.com/
 * http://jornalharekrsnabrasil.blogspot.co.uk/
 * http://vidasimplesepensamentoelevado.blogspot.com/
 * http://iskconaverdade.blogspot.com/


 * Russian:
 * http://www.purebhakti.ru/
 * http://www.radiokrishna.ru/
 * http://www.a108.net/


 * Polish:
 * https://www.purebhakti.pl/
 * https://www.bhaktijoga.pl/


 * French:
 * http://www.purebhakti-francais.com/


 * Spanish:
 * https://www.radharanikijay.com/
 * Books in Spanish:
 * https://www.radharanikijay.com/search/label/Libros


 * Italian:
 * http://www.gaudiya.it/


 * Dutch:
 * http://hollandsanga.blogspot.com/


 * Swedish:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20160306041634/http://bhakti.se/ [Archive 2016: now dead page]


 * There were formerly pages in Hindi, Chinese and other languages but I have not had time to find the Wayback Archive of them.


 * He has at least 6 Facebook pages dedicated to him:


 * https://www.facebook.com/narayanagosvami


 * https://www.facebook.com/2021Centennial


 * https://www.facebook.com/Swami.BV.Narayana


 * https://www.facebook.com/rememberingsrilagurudeva


 * https://www.facebook.com/SrilaBhaktiVedantaNarayanaGoswamiMaharaja


 * https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009908766411


 * This YouTube channel shows videos of him leading pilgrimage of hundreds & thousands of people:


 * https://www.youtube.com/user/krsnakarunya

http://www.purebhakti.tv
 * There are 4000 mp3s of his lectures and 2000 videos of him here:


 * There are hundreds of photographs of him touring the world from 2004-2010 here:


 * http://bvmlu.org/SBNM/index.html#photos and for example, this one shows him speaking before a crowd of 5000 people at a 5 day festival he held in Noida, New Delhi in 2004: :http://bvmlu.org/SBNM/photos_noida.html


 * (There is also an archive of several thousand photos on Facebook which I will try to find).


 * All the above is incontrovertible proof of Srila Narayana Maharaja's 'notability'.


 * He was a Gaudiya Vaisnava holy man, guru, author and lectured all over the world in front of many thousands of different people.


 * His nearly 300 books are still available in print and digitally, in at least 7 languages.


 * Any attempt to deny this as 'notable' is frankly ludicrous, if not downright dishonest. ShyamDasUK (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 October 2020 (BST)


 * Comment for Ian.thomson. You state "Sources (that are not independent)".
 * The sources include clear biographical information in the form of audio, videos and photographs. Videos of him walking with thousands of pilgrims, and giving lectures worldwide in front of hundreds and thousands of different people. He is well-known and respected in his field. Is being famous, published, admired and followed not 'notable'? The camera by its very nature is independent - if you have concrete visual evidence of a person's celebrity, how is that not valid?


 * Also - have you checked all the sources I posted? How many people do you know that have websites about them & their teachings in 10 languages, even 10 years after their passing from this world? This meets the notability criterion of "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".
 * ShyamDasUK (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop making a mess on this page. His own books, lectures, etc are not independent.  Please learn what "independent" means.  You need sources that are not dependent upon, affilited with, nor by him nor his associates.  That's all you need to bring up.  Blathering on about how wonderful you think he is just makes you look like you don't know what you're doing, which is going to make the closing admin disregard your arguments.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Ian.thomson - I don't say his books & lectures, or thousands of followers, are 'independent' -
 * I do say they are concrete evidence of his being worthy of note, ie. notable.
 * Here is an independent secondary source - a whole chapter in a Columbia University publication about his place in the Hare Krishna movement.
 * There is also the Encyclopedia of Hinduism entry cited elsewhere. ShyamDasUK (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That post is an admission that you have not read (or else do not understand) our notability guidelines, and so you should not be participating in this discussion. Notability requires independent sources, dependent sources do not factor into notability at all.  Continuing with the mistake of trying to defend inadequate sources instead of finding better ones (such as that Encyclopedia of Hinduism) is going make it harder for people to find good sources when you cite them.
 * Comment You state, "Dependent sources do not factor at all". But the Reliable Sources/Biographies rules state: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."
 * So there is some value in primary sources, defined as "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, ... and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event;". I have posted you eye-witness accounts, & news articles, with video footage to back it up. The page also requires secondary sources of course, which have also been provided. ShyamDasUK (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You notice that I've not !voted? I'm not going to because I don't care.  I'm just here because you and other !keep voters have seriously fucked up this page (and not in your favor).  One of the ways y'all are messing up is your continued insistence on commenting on everybody's !votes and responding to everything.  Stop, you're only hurting your case.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * @Ian.thomson I am doing my level best to read and comprehend your criteria, and adhere to them.
 * But I do feel that valid, logical points made by the *Keep side are being ignored. ShyamDasUK (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment All of the above links to websites, youtube channels, facebook pages, photos should be on the page itself since it validates the fact that we are discussing a celebrity. Source-of-inspiration (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Notability is measured by coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject; the number of websites about something does not impact this measure, neither does the number of books or videos published, nor the number of lectures held. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm sorry Blablubbs, but I disagree. If someone is the author of 294 books available in 7 languages, in print and available online, they are by definition notable. If someone has thousands of followers and has lectured all over the world in front of hundreds of thousands of different people, they are also, indisputably, notable. He was an inspiration to many and continues to be so.


 * He was honoured by various western leaders, including the Mayors of 2 western cities (Houston TX & Birmingham UK) and a religious committee in New Delhi, among others. There are many who have Wikipedia pages who are far less famous than Srila Narayana Maharaja. Thank you. ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment At the very least, we need to ditch the WP:HONORIFICS, which are not appropriate for an encylopaedia article. HDG Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur Prabhupada, the founder of the Gaudiya Math and the Saraswata line, of which ISKCON, IPBYS, etc., are part, is at Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati – as it should be, because that is his name minus the Vaisnava honorifics. Srila Narayana Maharaja's page should be at Bhaktivedanta Narayana (where Narayana is his sannyasi name), as it was before, if it stays. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would compromise on the honorifics - I would be willing to drop the "Srila", as "Sri" is the Hindi/Sanskrit equivalent of "Mr."; "Srila" would be more like "Sir". But Bhaktivedanta is his title, Narayana his first name, and he was commonly known as "Narayana Maharaja" in the world. There is another individual by the name of "Narayan Maharaj", so for clarity, the "Bhaktivedanta" designation must be retained. I would prefer "Bhaktivedanta Narayana Goswami Maharaja" but would settle for "Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja" (the name most readily recognisable) as the absolute minimum.


 * 3 names is not an unreasonable number - cp. Sarah Michelle Gellar or Martin Luther King. And religious leaders, Acharyas, should be treated with respect, even in academic circles. ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Above stated: "Not appropriate for encylopaedia article" Where is this stated? What third-party published documentation states this? Stated above: "because that is his name minus the Vaisnava honorifics." This sentence needs clarity. Again, there is not a single academic reference citing third-party sources to support the suggestion for deletion. The statements above are ungrounded, false, and contradictory as stated in comment below by KundalataDasi below. Source-of-inspiration (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I wholly disagree with the individual named Dasanudasa. By his logic, the word "Prabhupada" should be removed from the title of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's article.  Without this, hardly anybody would recognize the subject of the article.  Instead, the appropriate course of action is to use the full name under which each of these individuals have published their books and are recognized by their readers. For Srila Narayana Maharaja, this is "Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja."  Anything short of this would confuse him with another person with a similar name: Narayan Maharaj.  I urge Wikipedia administrators to consider this point and avoid any changes to the article name.  This would be completely inappropriate and diminish the educational value of the article, as it would then become less discoverable to those seeking to learn more about this eminent guru. KundalataDasi (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Prabhupada is an exception in the majority of reliable independent sources call him by that name, rather than simply AC Bhaktivedanta Swami. That isn't the case for Narayana Maharaja (albeit mainly because there are hardly any sources on his life that aren't published by his own organisation or disciples). The article title now is inappropriate due to the extensive use of honorifics. "Srila" is not part of his name; neither are "Goswami" or "Maharaja" (the first of which simply means he is a sannyasi, and the later of which is an honorific meaning "great king"). Just as we don't use titles like "Sir" or "Dame" or "His Majesty", neither are these appropriate for an article title. There are no other Bhaktivedanta Narayanas on Wikipedia, so this shouldn't present a problem. Poor old Bhaktivedanta Tripurari doesn't even get his "Bhaktivedanta" in there, just his sannyasa name: he's at Tripurari. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This statement, "Poor old Bhaktivedanta Tripurari doesn't even get his "Bhaktivedanta" in there, just his sannyasa name" is subjective, non-academic and has no bearing in this discussion. Source-of-inspiration (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I take no delight in "Poor old Bhaktivedanta Tripurari" [sic] not having his name properly represented - he should be "Tripurari Swami" or "Bhaktivedanta Tripurari" at the very least. He is also a Vaisnava leader. ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we could drop the "Srila", as a compromise. It is an honorific, similar to "Sir" or "His Holiness". It can still be used in the article itself. Most searches would be for Bhaktivedanta Narayana, Narayana Maharaja or Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja. Personally, I would settle for "Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja" as the absolute minimum. ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment Original request for deletion states: "from a quick scan...." A quick scan indicates whimsical actions; whimsical actions to arbitrarily suggest an article for deletion constitutes trolling . A quick scan does not meet any guidelines for the deletion process. You have not made a single specific point with academic evidence or research.


 * Comment: You are suggesting that the page for Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami be deleted yet it appears you have not executed any of the considerations before nominating an article for deletion as cited here under **Deletion Process**.


 * For your convenience I am citing a few of the points here. Note that ALL of the steps should be considered:


 * Investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.
 * First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.


 * To repeat, it clearly states in the process for deletion:


 * The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.


 * Unless you have scholarly evidence to support your suggestion for deletion, you are violating Wikipedia's deletion process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Source-of-inspiration (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Agreed. There are no valid grounds for deletion, certainly not on the basis of notability, nor lack of sources. ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:BLP, almost all sources are primary except for a now defunct news network, and this page seems to be full of sockpuppets canvassing votes, presenting no actual keep arguments. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 13:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Dear Berrely - Please check the sources again, there is a variety of them including scholarly analysis by those unconnected with the Hare Krishna movement.
 * I don't know what a sock puppet is, but I also don't see how hard evidence of hundreds of publications and dozens of webpages in a variety of languages, plus proof of festivals and lecture tours held globally during Maharaja's lifetime, before many thousands of people, do not prove that a person was a celebrity and thus 'notable'. Is there some kind of prejudice or campaign in the academic world against religious persons and communities? ShyamDasUK (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The news network is not defunct, it has merely changed URL from www.vnn.org to http://vaishnava-news-network.org/


 * The VNN.org archive is found here: http://www.vaishnava-news-network.org/europe/index.html ShyamDasUK (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Also, Berrely states "Fails WP:BLP" - BLP being Biography of Living Persons. But Maharaja passed away in 2010.
 * I think this shows he didn't look very deeply into this page, or its validity.
 * I have just Googled sock puppet - that is, "online account for the purpose of deception".
 * I am known by this name, Shyam Das - it is not even just a pseudonym. No-one is pretending to be someone else here.
 * It is a wholly false and frankly, offensive allegation. ShyamDasUK (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct to point out my mistake, I had a temporary lapse of judgement. Even so, the article still fails the equivalent notability policy, Notability (people). Also, for a definition of sockpuppet on Wikipedia, see WP:SOCK. I am in no way saying you are a sock or SPA, but with the constant bludgeoning in this AfD, it is likely multiple users are (or at least canvasing votes) — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 18:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Berrely - you say "the article fails the notability policy Notability (people)".
 * Among those criteria are the following:
 * The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
 * The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.

The author of the page has added 2 such awards, from the Visva Dharma Samsad (World Religious Parliament) in New Delhi, 2003, and from the Mayor of Houston, Texas, 2003.

There is also a record of his being honoured by the Deputy Mayor of Birmingham, U.K., Mrs. Teresa Stewart, and the president of the National Council of Hindu Temples, in June 2001. He was at that time presented the World Peace Flame, which had traveled around the world from five continents, and has been previously offered to the Pope, Nelson Mandela, and others who were known to have been instrumental in bring about world peace, by Kamala Wood of Life Foundation Worldwide.

As for "enduring historical record in a specific field" - I have provided so much evidence of that, audio, video & photographical, in the form of thousands of lectures given, festivals held, his travelling the world 30 times, and being received by thousands of people in dozens of countries - this page amply meets both these criteria of notability.

He has a published biography, and section 4 of the Notability (People) page states:
 * Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

Please read WP:BASIC, not a single of the source you provided are reliable, and many are self published. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 20:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to have examined the sources in any depth at all, your one-line comments carry little weight. There are 11 separate authors cited as sources, some of them impartial academic scholars. It is unsurprising that the Hare Krishna devotees know the most about a Hare Krishna Guru, Acharya (teacher), but the various branches of Hare Krishna are not the only sources given. Please look again. Are you saying the 'Encyclopedia of Hinduism' is not valid? You may as well be saying "Hinduism is not valid". ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure whether Berrely has this article confused with another because this is not an accurate statement. Please note that the majority of content in this article is sourced from an entry in the Encyclopedia of Hinduism published by Mandala Publishing.  Additional sources include scholarly articles by Bloch, Broo, Collins, De Backer, etc. who are all academic professionals who have written on the subject of the article.  Finally, I have also referenced news articles online, which are perhaps less credible than these academic sources above but reliable nevertheless. KundalataDasi (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep *Comment Berrely is making false accusations of socket puppetry; meanwhile he is not presenting himself as following the guidelines for deletion as stated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:D%C4%81s%C4%81nud%C4%81sa#Violating_Wikipedia_deletion_process_requirements. A deep investigation of his editing history does not indicate Berrely is an expert in any subject matter particularly this subject matter; Berrely displays no authority to even comment in this thread as he simply copied and pasted the original suggestion for deletion from Dasanudasa. You are WRONG to state that we are socket puppets. That is a false accusation and in itself displays a hostile and desperate attempt to hack, troll, and vandalize the page of an innocent celebrity who has served humanity for a greater good. Source-of-inspiration (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Struck and un-bolded three duplicate !votes. Users would benefit from dropping the bludgeon, remembering that Brevity is the soul of wit, and avoiding ad hominem  attacks. Focus on content, not contributors. If you cannot make a convincing argument in a reasonable-length paragraph, the point becomes far less convincing with every wall of text that gets posted. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC) (came here from  the discord)


 * Reply Thanks Eddie891 - I do have a tendency to be verbose and go into detail. I'm not a Wikipedia expert. But I have collected a large body of evidence to show that the subject was and is a most notable person, and provided it herewith. I tried to make it as legible as possible. All the best =o) ShyamDasUK (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject can be observed following a before search. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I think you may have reviewed too quickly. Mandala Publishing, Columbia University Press, Abo Akademi University Press, etc. are not self-publishing houses.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KundalataDasi (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject of the article was appointed the  “Honorary Citizen”  of the City of Houston on 31st May, 2003 by Mr. Lee P. Brown, the Mayor of the City of Houston. The plaque (a photo of which is seen in the article) given by the Mayor states that this “is in recognition of your outstanding success in your vocation and in appreciation of the valuable contributions you have made and are making through unselfish public service for the benefit and welfare of humanity. Furthermore, as a token of high esteem, I have selected you to serve as a  Goodwill Ambassador  of this city …..”.


 * City of Houston is the 4th largest city in the United States. Mr. Lee P. Brown was a very respected and influential leader of Houston. He would not have appointed Srila Narayana Maharaja as the Honorary Citizen and the Goodwill Ambassador if he was not a notable personality and his contributions were not noteworthy. Vbudhiraja (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Vbudhiraja (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.


 * Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Based on the above discussion, I thought I was going to find lots of sources to evaluate. However, I was very surprised that searches on Google News and Scholar, NYT, JSTOR and Academic OneFile did not produce a single source: no passing mentions, no short bios and no reviews of his work. In the evaluation of the sources listed above, I am still not convinced they show notability as defined by Wikipedia at WP:N. We can't use his own publications to show notability because they are not secondary sources. Fan pages, Facebook pages and blog posts are not reliable. VNN doesn't have a masthead and accepts articles from "contributors" so they are not reliable. Therefore, I recommend deletion. My vote might change if at least two links to profiles or reviews of his work are posted that pass WP:GNG: "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Claims that he is notable, without a link to a source I can check myself, will not convince me that he is notable. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a comment for Z1720. Please take a look at http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-hare-krishna-movement/9780231122566 for the Irvin H. Collins piece referenced in the article. You can preview the book in Google Books and confirm that the entire chapter is devoted to a study of Srila Narayana Maharaja.  Furthermore, consider the book by Broo Mans and the dissertation by Luc De Backer ("Conversion and Ritualisation"), the latter of which is indexed in Proquest Dissertations.  A search on Oxford University's SOLO system produces dozens of hits on Srila Narayana Maharaja--both works that reference him and works that have been written by him.  Srila Narayana Maharaja is often cited by Religious Studies scholars whose academic focus is on Hinduism or Gaudiya Vaisnavism.  I would also encourage you to search on academia.edu, which nets numerous results. I'm sincerely puzzled why you would argue that he is not notable when all these references exist and have been included in this article.  Please reconsider. KundalataDasi (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment for Z1720 - You say you found not "a single source" on Google News (3 sources in 3 languages, English, Spanish & Italian).
 * You omit to mention Google Books, there are over 10 pages of publications there;
 * Google Images brings up hundreds of photos of him, too many to count.


 * Google Scholar brings up many results, too - including secondary sources by impartial academic scholars, such as this one published by Columbia University Press, which delineates the history of Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja's relationship with Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and ISKCON.
 * Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharajawas and is a famous personality, remarkable and/or of special interest in the religious field, and an accomplished & prolific author.


 * May I also point out that the Wikipedia criteria for Notability of Academics (including Scholars and Philosophers) states:


 * Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. ShyamDasUK (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Bringing up Google images proves you have no understanding whatsoever as to what qualifies as an independent reliable source. Just stop already.  Also, when I look at the Google Books results, I see that there are results but it's rather difficult to find those that are independent of him but still specifically about him.  As the person asserting notability, it is your job to cite specific results (not just "hey, there's plenty there but I'm going to make you find them anyway").Ian.thomson (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving some ideas on where to find sources. Here is my analysis of what was posted:
 * Regarding the Columbia Uni. Press source: The author of the book, Irvin H. Collins, is part of Narayana Gosvami Maharaja's organisation. Per, "Irvin H. Collins...is now associated with the organisation of Narayana Maharaja." WP:GNG says if you want to use a source to establish notability, it must be, "'Independent of the subject'[:] excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." Collins is affiliated with Maharaja, therefore this source cannot establish notability.
 * Regarding the Google news search results: has no masthead (the "About" page is an error message) and the article doesn't have an author, so it's not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE.  is about one of Maharaja's disciples and only mentions Maharaja in passing.  might be reliable, although it is clearly labelled as a blog and I can't find the masthead on the site. Maharaja is only mentioned in three paragraphs of the blog post.
 * Regarding the Google Books search: Many of the results mention Maharaja in passing. If you find a book that is a WP:RS and fulfils WP:GNG, please post it below. The amount of search results will not convince me: I will need a specific source, with a link, that I can evaluate (similar to what was posted for the Columbia Uni. Press source)
 * I'm ignoring the Google Image search results because images are not reliable sources
 * The Google Scholar results either produce Maharaja's own work (which are not reliable sources) or passing mentions. One source,, gives a synopsis of the conflict between Maharaja and ISKCON in the footnotes, but I don't think this is significant coverage, and I can't determine if the two editors of the book are independent of the subject as I can't read their bios in the Google Books preview.
 * To summarize: There are two sources listed above, and, that might be enough to establish notability, but I would need to see more significant coverage of this person to change my vote to "keep".Z1720 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Likewise I tried to find some coverage online but miserably failed. I tried with the "B. V. Narayan" spelling as well. The keepers above should try to explain which SNG criteria Gosvami meets (because it is a definite GNG fail) and then point out to resources that validate the SNG argument. Saying that there are facebook fan pages and things alike is a weird argument to be made in AfD. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a comment for The Aafī. Please take a look at http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-hare-krishna-movement/9780231122566 for the Irvin H. Collins piece referenced in the article. You can preview the book in Google Books and confirm that the entire chapter is devoted to a study of Srila Narayana Maharaja.  Furthermore, consider the book by Mans Broo and the dissertation by Luc De Backer ("Conversion and Ritualisation"), the latter of which is indexed in Proquest Dissertations.  A search on Oxford University's SOLO system produces dozens of hits on Srila Narayana Maharaja--both works that reference him and works that have been written by him.  Srila Narayana Maharaja is often cited by Religious Studies scholars whose academic focus is on Hinduism or Gaudiya Vaisnavism.  I would also encourage you to search on academia.edu, which nets numerous results. Thank you for considering. KundalataDasi (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , while you commented the same earlier pointing to, you shouldn't comment it again and again. Suggesting you to read the COAL essay, "Don't Stand There Bouncing the Damned Ball". Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment @The Aafī - My www.duck.com search on "B.V. Narayan" yielded this paper to the GBC & devotees of ISKCON, this condolence notice on his passing from ISKCON, who had been inimical to him at times; this formal apology from that global religious organisation to him for previous misunderstandings, and this subtitled video of him speaking about Lord Jesus. There are images of him also but the best search term would be "Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja".
 * There is some confusion because there is another B.V. Narayan from Bangalore, and Narayan is a very common Indian name.
 * Try here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=b.v.+narayana+maharaja&ia=web ShyamDasUK (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , You miss what is reliable, significant and independent coverage. YouTube, Wordpress and sites alike aren't reliable sources. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Aafī - He has several mentions on this Hare Krishna news page (independent of and sometimes critical of his organisation), including this letter showing him to be Acharya & president of a religious organisation and this article regarding the sale of a $3.5m Los Angeles property, both from 2007. ShyamDasUK (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , This isn't any reliable source or something having significant coverage. To my understanding this website comes no way near the "premises" of reliable sources. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the ISKCON formal apology to Srila Narayana Maharaja in 2009 from their official news page, not Wordpress. There are several mentions of him here on ISKCON News, including this one regarding their relationship with "His Holiness Narayana Maharaja, a prominent leader of the Vaishnava group the Gaudiya Math". Note that they are a separate organisation who had quarrelled with him and his followers (cp. Protestant/Catholic, Sunni/Shia - in this case, ISKCON/Gaudiya Math).
 * The coverage may not seem significant to you, but to a sizeable minority (western Hindu converts), it is very relevant indeed - and therefore of public interest, and noteworthy. ShyamDasUK (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

, just because a newspaper is read by some people, doesn't mean the source is reliable. In this whole argument you have been ignoring the most obvious policy (from WP:42): Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If you continue to claim a source is noteworthy because "many people read it" or "it is very well known in X" then your arguments will be disregarded. I suggest reading the basic WP:GNG, instead of repeatedly asking the same questions. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 09:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I consider the subject to more or less meet WP:ANYBIO additional criteria of WP:SNG. Particularly, #1: the person has received an award and was honored as the Honorary Citizen and Goodwill Ambassador of the City of Houston. Also, #2 is apparently met: “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field” - in the Gaudiya Vaishnavism field. Uksus70 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it also needs to pass WP:BASIC, simply passing 2 addition criterion doesn't guarantee it notability. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 13:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right . Perhaps I misinterpret the first statement of the “Additional criteria” section which says, “People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards.” Thank you for teaching the newbie that I am. Just please WP:DNB :) Uksus70 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: In relation to WP:BASIC, most of the criteria are met:
 * 1. Sufficient reliable, secondary sources: Especially the following are independent academic studies, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject: Bloch, B.; Broo, Mans; De Backer, Luc; Holland, Clifton L.; Murphy, Una Marian; Rosen, Steven; Rao, K. L. Seshagiri. None of these seem to be connected with the subject.
 * 2. I referred one of these books- Encyclopedia of Hinduism and the subject has been covered substantially. This is an independent work commissioned by India Heritage Research Foundation, USA. Also looked up another source: By Goswami, Satswarupa das - Srila Prabhupada Lilamrta. The subject has significant coverage here. This is an independent work commissioned by ISKCON, independent of the subject and intellectually independent of other sources quoted. I looked up to see if the author Goswami, Satswarupa was a follower of the subject but he is not.
 * 3. Multiple secondary sources have been provided (listed in #1).
 * Additionally, subject also meets Criteria for WP:ANYBIO #1, #2.
 * Deletion is unnecessary in my view. Kathy0204 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kathy0204 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.


 * Are you quoting an encyclopedia... In an encyclopedia? WP:TERTIARY — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 16:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an independent work, an in-depth study, presenting various facts and aspects about Hinduism. Where is the guideline not to use tertiary sources in WP:TERTIARY Kathy0204 (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear Kathy0204 (above) created her account specifically to add another 'vote' to this discussion, and I suspect Uksus70 has been canvassed too. Something to be aware of. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , This AfD is "sock infected". ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Likely an online forum somewhere spoon feeding people. A closer will disregard most of these !votes anyways. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 16:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks the coverage required in multiple reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG; a lot of the 'keep' votes from SPAs and meat puppets are not addressing Wikipedia policy Spiderone  17:29, 7 October 2020 (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.