Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedavyasapriya Swami


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Vedavyasapriya Swami

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

Non notable person, Google comes up with 60 hits Article is also very POV. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete, fails WP:BIO entirely. Equendil Talk 18:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * *Note also copyvio of http://abhay001.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/his-holiness-vedavyasapriya-swami-maharaj/ Equendil Talk 07:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Been rewritten. Equendil Talk 12:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been re-added, 95% of the article is now a quote from a [weblog] I think that in this state the article would even qualify for a speedy Erebus Morgaine (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Rewritten but even with it's condensed size like it is now, the quote still makes up the majority of the article. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I have reduce the quote and contextualized it in the "History" section. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

*Delete per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs a rewrite, but the subject of the article is notable. He is an ISKCON Swami (No. 81). I will add the reference to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, the proper name is usually Vedavyasa Priya Swami, or Vedavyasa-priya Swami. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see how that makes that person notable, any non trivial coverage ? Equendil Talk 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - possibly a less notable, but still one of ISKCON swamis, but notable for being from a rather traditional background. Not too many sources in books... so the article should be shorten. Wikidās ॐ 07:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A traditional background does not make one notable enough for Wikipedia, also notability does not directly limit article content as stated in WP:NNC. Although the article has improved a bit, it still only has 4 sources 3 of those are from ISKCON, the other from a personal website, these are primary sources only. Therefore the article fails WP:N which states the subject must have significant coverage in secondary sources. Google scholar, news and books return zero results on either "Vedavyasa Priya Maharaja" and "Vedavyasa Priya Swami" or even "Vedavyasa Priya" Erebus Morgaine (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that traditional background by itself does not warrant notability. The combination of him being an ISKCON leader, guru, sannyasi and being from a traditional background does. The religious sources for the religious leaders can be considered as reliable sources. I certainly agree that academic sources should be added to the article and yes the sources of googlescholar and googlebook do not have any indexed material in English on him. Wikidās ॐ 11:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but sources not independent of the subject are not to be considered reliable. Third party sources are needed. Equendil Talk 12:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources from an organization that state how that person is notable in that organization are reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources quoted are not his personal site or a blog and are not under any control of the individual. Hope that clarifies it. Wikidās ॐ 13:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources currently in the article are primary sources and are not independent sources. Therefore the article fails WP:GNG which clearly states (emphasis mine): "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." and is further clarified by: "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject". Notability aside, the article also fails verifiability especially this section. While i am sure this person does a lot of good work for his organization, that does not mean he meets the notability/verifiability threshold for inclusion into Wikipedia. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you may note the sources are not the best, but are not primary, are independent from the subject and were in majority accepted as a reliable sources on WP:RSN for the particular sect and who is and who is not notable in the religious group. Some areas of article may not be verifiable and need to be. It is not his work for organization that makes him notable, its his position in it. Wikidās ॐ 19:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which discussion on WP:RSN are you refering to ? Equendil Talk 22:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was discussed a few times in principle. Obviously official site of ISKCON is reliable source for ISKCON related information: Reliable sources for ISKCON related articles Wikidās ॐ 00:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not so obviously as you state, the page you refer to states (emphasis mine): "Membership in ISKCON would appear to be a substantial notability claim." however that is based solely on one comment of a single editor, I'd hardly call that consensus. Furthermore, WP:SOURCES states "Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly." In my above comments I have shown that the article fails WP:V and WP:SOURCES (an official Wikipedia policy, which takes precedence over WP:RS which in turn, is a guideline). And even aside from all of this, WP:RS which you mention, does not mention that ISKCON is a secondary or tertiary source. Let alone an independent one. Since this article still has no secondary/tertiary (independant) sources (as per my comments above) and Google scholar/news/books come up with zero results, my initial statement of it failing WP:N and WP:V still stands. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Erebus Morgaine. I have added other references to the site, including The Tribune newspaper, Vaisnava Institute of Higher education and University paper among many other independent sources  that mention him. Ideally the person would have been a subject of independent study, but since there are many sources that confirm the claims of notability, ie that he is guru and swami in ISKCON, it is a specialized field and only a few editors are expert in it. There is no lack of multiple sources that confirm the claim of notability. Also as with BLPs, subjects website is a good source of material, in fact preferred one for contentious claims. Wikidās ॐ 10:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please note that while the article has been made to look "well referenced" since its nomination for AfD, the references lead to trivial material used as primary source. Essentially links showing the subject to be scheduled for various events as part of his work.
 * Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject". "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". Equendil Talk 11:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Per same WP:BIO we can state that improvements have worked out and can be reasonably assumed on future improvement, so no reason for AfD. You are trying to paint it as if the sources are published by the subject or primary. They are not. Wikidās ॐ 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of secondary sources. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's true that the subject is only coincidentally mentioned in sources outside of the religious hierarchy he belongs to. But he is verifiably (including according to 3rd party sources) part of that religious hierarchy. In theory this alone should not make him notable. But in practice every Catholic cardinal is, even though most pages of that kind have no references other than Catholic ones. In the absence of any explicit notability guidelines regarding religious figures, this is a de facto guideline for inclusion (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS gets IAR'd here). Unless you want to delete 90% of the cardinals of course. Frankly, I think that something similar to Notability_(academics) should be drafted for religious figures as well, i.e. they should somehow stand out amongst their peers. Being part of the highest level (under the top figure) of a religious hierarchy would qualify as the religious equivalent of "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". VG &#x260E; 02:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S.: My analogy assumes that the religion itself is notable, which seems to be the case here. Obviously, being the top figure in an non-notable religion shared by 5 people does not automatically make someone notable. VG &#x260E; 19:32, 21 September 2008 (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.