Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urmila Devi Dasi (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Although I note for the record that comments like "she is notable" without any further comment or evidence were not considered in making this determination. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. Despite that, the remainder of comments indicate a consensus to keep the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Urmila Devi Dasi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article went through two AfDs but no reliable independent sources where found. There's no coverage in idependent reliable sources to establish notability. She's only mentioned in passing in intellectually independent reliable sources. Gaura79 (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- A notable person who is one of the key educators in ISKCON and probably the only prominent lady there with sources to back it up. Wikid as&#169; 12:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you present independent, reliable sources that back up these claims of yours?Gaura79 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This article was a Keep in two prior AfDs - nominated by the same user. --Shruti14 talk • sign 12:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This article was a No concensus in two prior AfDs. The first time it was not nominated by me, only the second time. I still would like to see independent, reliable sources establishing notability.Gaura79 (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it is not true, the article was keep in the first AfD, keep/no consensus during the second one. Wikid as&#169; 16:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. But still you'll have to present independent, reliable sources to support your claims that she's "one of the key educators in ISKCON and probably the only prominent lady". The sources you presented in previous AfD are ISKCON's sources and therefore are not independent.Gaura79 (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't see why independent sources IN ISKCON are not sufficient and those in the article already but here some other that clarify this point, let give you good faith at last:
 * None of the sources mentioned above can be used to establish notability. The second one, actually, is her own website, created to promote her English learning course or whatever. The last one is a college newspaper. It is not a good source to prove notability and it mentions her only in passing. There's barely any trivial coverage by secondary sources. Clearly, it is not sufficient to establish notability. She fails WP:GNG and article should be deleted. Gaura79 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources mentioned above can be used to establish notability. The second one, actually, is her own website, created to promote her English learning course or whatever. The last one is a college newspaper. It is not a good source to prove notability and it mentions her only in passing. There's barely any trivial coverage by secondary sources. Clearly, it is not sufficient to establish notability. She fails WP:GNG and article should be deleted. Gaura79 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources mentioned above can be used to establish notability. The second one, actually, is her own website, created to promote her English learning course or whatever. The last one is a college newspaper. It is not a good source to prove notability and it mentions her only in passing. There's barely any trivial coverage by secondary sources. Clearly, it is not sufficient to establish notability. She fails WP:GNG and article should be deleted. Gaura79 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources mentioned above can be used to establish notability. The second one, actually, is her own website, created to promote her English learning course or whatever. The last one is a college newspaper. It is not a good source to prove notability and it mentions her only in passing. There's barely any trivial coverage by secondary sources. Clearly, it is not sufficient to establish notability. She fails WP:GNG and article should be deleted. Gaura79 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources mentioned above can be used to establish notability. The second one, actually, is her own website, created to promote her English learning course or whatever. The last one is a college newspaper. It is not a good source to prove notability and it mentions her only in passing. There's barely any trivial coverage by secondary sources. Clearly, it is not sufficient to establish notability. She fails WP:GNG and article should be deleted. Gaura79 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Notable religious leader with citations to verify notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which citations are you talking about?Gaura79 (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep she is notable (User) Mb (Talk) 22:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Key woman figure within ISKCON. Bill william compton (talk) 16:36, 9 February 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.