Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:ISKCON Nepal

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Ə XPLICIT 05:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:ISKCON Nepal

 * – (View MfD)

Resubmitted multiple times despite multiple rejections. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC) *Keep No reason for deletion and sourced. Free speech of 1000&#39;s (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Sro23 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Adam9007 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The MFD is valid for tendentious resubmission of the draft despite multiple AFC reviewers saying how there's not enough to show independent notability from ISKCON. Also per WP:WITHIN this can easily fit in a section in ISKCON.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Which part if it has sources are you struggling to get to grips with? Free speech of 1000&#39;s (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I see enough evidence to open a SPI (and I have). I'm considering if ANI is warranted but I'll wait for the outcome of the SPI. Pahunkat (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC) It's Evlekis again, striking this comment Pahunkat (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Pahunkat (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete no reason to keep this draft --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Mainspace it. Worthy of WP:Stub. The suggested redirect target, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, is a very small part of a large and very broad article, and I think this major temple is worthy of a spinout. I also think the decline reasons lack substance, and the reviewers standard for acceptance is too high. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it going to be about the temple then? It should have more details about the temple itself, its construction and support. But it's far from containing any of that information as it stands. This is mainly because of the tendentious resubmissions by socks. If someone wants to write up the temple article and make it a stub then that's a different story. Call it ISKCON Temple Nepal. Compare with the other temple articles like ISKCON Temple Chennai. But branch organizations and locales usually don't get their own article if the verbiage can be described in the main.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s already about the temple. It’s an important temple and tourist attraction and there is an abundance of sources. It already meets WP:Stub. Ideas of merging and improvement are for when it’s in mainspace. I consider the declines to have been over-demanding, and for that I forgive the resubmissions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first decline comment: "Comment: As with Hare Krishna in Macedonia, this can be a section in the Hinduism in Nepal article and be developed there. It can also be added to the ISKCON article. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)"
 * I think that should have been an "accept" followed by tagging it for a proposed merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * While I think "accept, and merge and redirect to International Society for Krishna Consciousness" was a better option than declining, the same outcome can be achieved by Redirect the draft to International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Having gone through many ghits for ISKCON Nepal and its temple, I conclude that it is not independently notable, but should be covered in that article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Resubmitted after rejection without proper discussion of the rejection, and then repeated removing of the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely seems like this would have enough sources handy to have a full article if it were in the Anglosphere; until those turn up, it seems perfectly fine to have it in our collective bullpen. Ab e g92 contribs 20:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Retain - No prejudice against moving it to the mainspace if anyone deems it fit. Personally, I would suggest userfying this per WP:DUD. Topic seems reasonable and something may come of it per SmokeyJoe and Abeg92. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ,, as AFC reviewers who rejected the draft, can you provide your thoughts on this? AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I would've been fine with keeping it until it stales out after 6 months, but I presently support deletion for the reasons brought up by Robert. Curbon7 (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete We have three asserions for keeping it, but neither of those three are willing to bale the WP:HEY. The first asserion for a keep is that our "standard for acceptance is too high" and that the decline reasons "lack substance". The burden of establishing (or disproving) notability is on the page creator, not the reviewer. So not sure what that's about. Second keep vote is basically a passive aggresive accusation of prejudice; that we would treat this differently if it were in the Anglosphere which is just patently absurd. Third suggests userifying via WP:DUD, which makes sense except for the fact that we have to consider not only content here, but conduct. If this were userified it isn't that much of a stretch to imagine that the parties involved would just resubmit it anyways.


 * TL;DR we have three keep votes and not a single one actually argues why the subject is notable.


 * Easy delete considering the tendentious resubmissions by socks and a bit of salt should be considered if it pops up again. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: resubmitted after rejection.  Java Hurricane  16:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - rejected many times, and would consider salting also. --IWI (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2021 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.