Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

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. It is clear that this article has serious issues that need to be resolved, but currently there is no consensus to delete the material outright. A few editors have proposed merging this material elsewhere to help alleviate notability concerns - whether the best option for the future of this information is to merge it or improve the standalone article is one that should be carefully considered by editors actively maintaining the article. Shereth 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhaktivedanta Narayana

Bhaktivedanta Narayana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable religous leader. Part of non notable religious institute. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are lacking entirely. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable from non notable institution. Questionable sources at best. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I fail to see how your argument is stronger than the last time you AFD'd this article. What's changed? Chopper Dave (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article still does not state, much less prove, how its subject is notable - it only states that he is a "spiritual leader." Also the sources are not reliable. The monthly publication, Sri Bhagavat Patrika, is self published. (That this journal is a self publication was not pointed out in the last debate and was given as a reason for voting "Keep.") Also, the website used for the article Pure Bhakti, is also self published. This religious leader's guru, and his religious institute, are red links, as both are non notables. In all, the article still fails to have any reliable sources with information to meet Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per recent discussion in previous CfD. I don't think anything has substantially changed since then. The individual is mentioned in third-party works that are referenced. Yes, the article needs work, but I don't see deletion as the answer here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• The references in which the subject is mentioned, aside from the self published ones, are concerned with the subject of ISKCON. These texts are about ISKCON. In passing, there is mention of Bhaktivedanta Narayana and his relationship with ISKCON. If these references are accepted as reliable sources, then I can see how a Redirect or a Merge to the ISKCON page might be more appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete This article has failed to establish notability and is an advertisement of sorts. It is impossible to account for all people named Narayana in India. Dozens of them are svamis, you will find it with the google seach for Narayana svami or Narayana Maharaja. Please also refer to WP:ENC. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FREE ADVERTISING SPACE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR UNSOURCED MATERIAL. Not a single claim or information in the article have sources and the whole article does not comply with WP:CITE guidelines, a search of reliable sources doe not support any of it. One can not rely on blogs or self published material to establish notability. All other references quoted are occasional and incidental, have nothing to do with the notability of the person and are often not from reliable sources and are not about the subjects notability.

Living persons bio must abide by:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

This entry shows absence of all and thus should not exist. None are found that directly relate to the living person called Bhaktivedanta Narayana. He is mention exclusively in passing and number of hits does not warrant the inclusion.

Find sources: Bhaktivedanta Narayana — news, books, scholar

MBest-son (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

*Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. The subject, by himself, does not meet notability criteria. Shovon (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, meets Notability basic criteria as the subject of secondary published material (see The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant And Change), and he is quoted in Light on Death: the Spiritual Art of Dying by Phillip Jones, to name a couple sources offhand. --MPerel 02:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• The subject of the book, The Hare Krishna Movement, is ISKCON (also known as the Hare Krishna Movement). In order for this reference to establish notablity on Bhaktivedanta Narayana, he would have to be the subject of the text - and he is not. He is only mentioned in a few pages out of this 448 pages text, which is on ISKCON. This article is lacking in references which cite him as the subject. These must be demonstrated, otherwise, the subject still fails even the basic criteria for notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The references in which the subject is mentioned, aside from the self published ones, are concerned with the subject of ISKCON. It is important to point out that in these materials, he is only mentioned in passing - there is only mention of Bhaktivedanta Narayana and his relationship with ISKCON. If these references are accepted as reliable sources, then I can see how a Redirect or a Merge to the ISKCON page might be more appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Admin closing note Application of Notability Criteria:

A claim was put forward (by MPerel) that Bhaktivedanta Narayana has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This is incorrect and he was not a subject of any such material and was only noted in passing. Thus Basic criteria is not met. Maybe such material exists in Hindi, thus subject should be part of Hindi Wiki. As far as English publications it is clear that the depth of coverage is not substantial, and multiple or any independent sources are not present that are needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability, and this is evident from the above searches. No other sources contribute towards proving the notability of the subject. The only sources are self-published and unreliable. Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. As accepted the barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Additional criterias are not applicable and no evidence of any of the same is found or can be found from any reliable sources in English. No works focus upon the subject. See: WP:INHERITED that provides cover for this policy and requres at best a redirect or merge to ISKCON that is the subjects inherited notability object. MBest-son (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Not notable per MBeston. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per MPerel, Bhaktivedanta Narayana is the subject of part of a chapter, pp.37-39, subtitled Narayana Maharaja, in The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant And Change and is mentioned on pp138, 215, 249 of that book. One hardly needs a whole book on a person to prove notability! In addition, cited therein are other works, like The "Routinization of Charisma" and the Charismatic: The Confrontation Between ISKCON and Narayana Maharaja -- Irvin H. Collins (Srila Das), which is chapter 13 of an academic book published by Columbia University Press. Just these two are sufficient, and high-quality, reliable sources. In addition, I note that the language of a source is irrelevant to its reliability and whether it can be used to prove notability.John Z (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• These are two sources, but they do not show the subject to be notable. One source is a chapter in a book on ISKCON, the other is a few pages in a book on ISKCON. Both of these two sources Do Not state that Bhaktivedanta Narayana is notable. It is important to note that these two sources only discuss Bhaktivedanta's relationship with ISKCON. If Bhaktivedanta Swami's relationship with ISKCON is notable then these sources could be used on the ISKCON page to discuss Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

As far as I understand it, I do not think your interpretation of the relevant guidelines is a common or standard one, or one which enjoys much support at Afd or elsewhere. Of course, if one subtracts whatever is notable about a person, including his relationships with other notable subjects, then one is left with nothing much. But this style of argument is a useless tautology. There is no requirement that a source state its subject is notable; that there is a substantial amount of material is enough. There is much more in each source - where this person's name is in the title - than usually deemed necessary.John Z (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is part of an ongoing campaign to discredit Srila Narayan Maharaja, The nominator 125.24.241.246 did so anonymously. To redirect his page to a page of his detractors at ISKCON is unacceptable. This article DOES have sufficient, and high-quality, reliable sources.Syama (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note The main reference for this article, cited above, is provided from a chapter in a book on ISKCON called The Hare Krishna Movement. This link above, "Routinization of Charisma" is just one chapter in this book - and it is about ISKCON. Bhaktivedanta Narayana is only mentioned in this chapter - it is about one issue - Bhaktivedanta's relationship with ISKCON (for a specific period of time). References on this gentleman's relationship to ISKCON are not enough to establish notablity as long as the subject himself remains non notable. The subject is still about a non notable and sources have not been provided to show the subject's notablity outside of his relationship to ISKCON. If Bhaktivedanta Swami's relationship with ISKCON is notable then these sources could be used on the ISKCON page to discuss Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON as a section of the ISKCON page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to ISKCON per above. Culturalrevival (talk) 17:06, 10 June 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.

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. No bias to future nominations, but no particular desire on the community's part to delete this seems to exist. WilyD 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna Vasudeva

Krishna Vasudeva (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is to be considered for deletion or expansion as the main body of the article is merged into article Krishna as a separate section. Wikidās-ॐ 11:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Renata (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Close Although nominater's proposal is a bit unclear (deletion or expansion?), it seems that at most Krishna Vasudeva will remain a redirect and not be deleted. In other words this is merge discussion. The article is already tagged with merge tags, so there's nothing to discuss here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Close per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This is very unclear. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:22, 9 June 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.

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Buddhist temples in Thailand

List of Buddhist temples in Thailand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This stand-alone list is severely lacking and impossible to complete. It fails to serve the purposes outlined under WP:LIST#Purposes of lists, has no notability criteria for inclusion and is not annotated, thereby providing no useful information whatsoever (perhaps except for sorting by province, which is entirely replaceable by subcategorising.) Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To put this in perspective, there are a total of 33,902 registered functioning Buddhist temples in Thailand as of 2004 according to the ministry of culture.[1] Mentioning a handful, half of which are red links, with no regard to importance or notability, is unlikely to provide encyclopaedic information in my opinion. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, looks fine to me. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Paul_012 ^(talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Provides information categories cannot-- organization by geography, images, and useful red-links for future articles. Clearly a notable subject. Just needs some sourcing and maybe some text/information. If the list gets too long, break it up into sections. Dekkappai (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have incorporated the geographical organisation provided by this list into the structure of Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand. Images can be included in category pages. Also, the list guidelines state that "as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic." --Paul_012 ^(talk) 20:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- Dekkappai (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Needs a lot of work, obviously, but this is insufficient reason to delete a subject that is clearly notable and encyclopedic. Eventually could be broken into subarticles by area/city, etc. once comprehensiveness grows. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• If the page is to be kept, advise on how to turn the page into an encyclopaedic article would be appreciated. Granted, there is an official list (in Thai), but even if someone were to undertake the daunting task of translating and incorporating the thirty-thousand-plus temples into the article, it would leave us with a list one hundred times the length of List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. I wonder what the reader would gain from such a list, which borders on being a directory, which Wikipedia is not. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 11:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment No one is arguing that lists are "encyclopaedic". Lists are "almanacical". Wikipedia is a reference work containing elements of an encyclopedia, almanac, and gazetteer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Perfect example of regiocentricity. Church list is ok, temple list is bad. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. I never said that such lists of churches are of great encyclopaedic value (although that one is far more complete and informative than this list), nor did I say this list should be deleted because it is a list of temples. It is, however, a hugely incomplete list of multiple subjects, some of which are notable, some of which aren't, with very poor prospect of ever being expanded and improved enough to be of use. I've been watching the page for two years, and although there have been additions now and then, all that's been achieved is an arbitrary list which provides no further information about its topics. As I said above, though, suggestions to improvement are welcome, though I wonder who would be interested enough in the article to apply them. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There are various comparable lists of churches - List of churches in Greater Manchester is one of the better ones. A directory gives addresses and phone numbers - not sure there is any danger of that. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I have to side with Paul on this one -- the list is incomplete, and there are too many red links in what is presented. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Incomplete is not a reason for deletion. If it was, we would have to delete every stub in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I do not understand the nominator's rationale. Thailand is famous for the religion and temples. Even though the list has long way to go, but I don't see any good reason for the list to be deleted. List is a compact version of what related articles are here and have to be created. If the red links are problems, then create article or de-linked. --Appletrees (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I find the "The list is incomplete, delete it" argument quite fascinating. Is there a movement afoot to delete all non-complete articles now? Dekkappai (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: obviously the list would benefit from (a lot of) upgrading work but the subject matter is unobjectionable, and lists are complementary to cats, not opposed to them. HeartofaDog (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable subject and appropriate list . DGG (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable list. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:41, 22 May 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.

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. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chua Bo De

Chua Bo De (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about a non-notable Buddhist temple Closedmouth (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

delete no notability established. SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- Dekkappai (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Just a quick Internet search brought up university-level sourcing, which has been added to the article. Dekkappai (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of references to prove notability. --Eastmain (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I notice the article was largely a copyright vio of THIS source. I've commented it out until someone can repair it. Dekkappai (talk) 18:55, 6 May 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.

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 per an apparent lack of notability. --jonny-mt 05:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reza F. Safa

Reza F. Safa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Massive conflict of interest with article author. I've read this through a dozen times, and it's still really just an advertisement. While this subject does pop up on a Google search, I still can't see that he meets notability requirements. Most of the references are Safa's own books (and one of the references is a Bible verse). Author (whose username is probably a violation of WP:U) twice removed my cleanup tags with no explanation. Overall, a promotional article for a marginally notable subject with huge COI issues. Tan | 39 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have written this article for Pastor Reza F. Safa. He is a very notable man... It is a biography, that is why they are taken from his own book. If you would like, I can re write the article from a more factual point of view describing his life.. Please work with me here before you delete it. Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBNNejattv (talk • contribs) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete — I'm afraid we can only work with you to the extent that Mr Safa is notable. I just don't see how he meets WP:BIO. And I've twice added speedy deletion tags that have been removed by TBNNejattv. — Lincolnite (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - TBNNejattv, if the subject of the article is notable it should be possible to get independent references for the article. So that would mean not relying solely on websites he's associated with, or books his written. If better refs can't supplied i too think it ought to be deleted. TBNNejattv, read this page over: WP:BIO.--Celtus (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - TBNNejattv, please read WP:COI and WP:NPOV carefully before editing any further. I edited the article and removed all instances of points of views and unverifiable sources. If you can fix that and bring some third-party published reliable sources soon then I'd be glad to support keeping it. Otherwise, it would be deleted. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - TBNNejattv (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Okay, thank you very much for your help. I greatly appreciate you all taking time to work with me on this article. I am new to Wikipedia and i think i am starting to understand your perspective on deleting this article. I think it is because I do not have enough sources (references) from third party websites or books and because I wrote it differently than presenting facts. I am going to try and edit it some more, even add a new subject to help with WP:COI.

Please give me some time to edit and work on this page. Again thank you very much TBN Nejat TV

• Comment - the article does have significant problems, as noted above, but may well be fixable by the main author. I'm happy to wait a few days to see how it changes. Tim Ross (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - TBNNejattv (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Okay guys, I have updated the article. Please tell me what you think and if i need to further correct it. I have added a bunch of third party websites to the list of references. Also I told more about TBN Nejat TV - the television network Reza Safa started.

Thanks guys! cant wait to hear back from you - TBN Nejat TV

• Comment If I understand the article correctly, this person runs a television network in Iran, a branch of TBN. Most of the sources that would meet the reliable source guidelines are from TBN or its affiliates. If this person is a noteworthy television broadcaster in Iran, can we confirm this from sources that are not directly from TBN? The conflict of interest makes it hard to tell if this is a notable person, of if the sources are simply the promotion of one of their own programs. It seems likely that an American-style Christian televangelism network in Iran would definitely be newsworthy; are there Iranian newspapers discussing it, either in English or in Farsi? If we can't find sources of his notability published anywhere other than by his own employers, it would seem to argue against his notability; if he is truly doing such noteworthy missionary work on behalf of Christianity in Iran, this seems like something that Iranian sources would be talking about. - FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If you notice reference number 16, it is from a magazine article written about him in English. I'm sure there are articles about him written in Farsi, BUT, under the circumstances, I do not understand Farsi well enough to understand what they are saying. Sorry for that inconvenience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.53.31 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - According to the AFD headers, there has been a previous AFD on this, whose result was Keep. Contrary to what FisherQueen concluded, I read the article that the subject is broadcasting by satellite into Iran. I am aware from other sources that Christian broadcasting to Iran does take place, though I know nothing of the subject of this article. My guess is that in Tulsa he is a very run-of-the-mill kind of pastor, who would be NN if all he did was pastor a church there. However broadcasting the Christian gospel to Iran is potentially notable. As a person of Iranian extraction, I presume the programming is in Farsi. I hear stories of the gospel being well-received there, but it is a very sensitive subject on which only limited (and general) information can be published, as we do not want more people martyred for becoming Christians, something that was happending periodically a few years ago. Note that TBNNejattv is the main author and evidently closely connected with the broadcasts. That gives rise to a conflect of interest, but does not necessarily mean that the content is wrong of affect the notability of the subject. That is soenting that needs to be judged objectively. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:25, 9 June 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.

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 Merge to Campus Crusade for Christ. I'm very hesitant to delete this, as it is the merge target for two previous merges, but I'm not convinced it yet has stand alone notability. Sourcing is the primary issue here, there are none, and I've done several searches as well as several editors here. I can't find anything other than passing mentions, "press release" type pseudo-articles, and stuff about the Intelligent Design debate of which they are a party to. They are probably notable, but if not verifiable, then not a standalone article. I'll add the merge template to the article, but I'm not doing the merge. The article needs to be trimmed down severely as it is overly detailed with minutia/unsourced assertions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student Life (university ministry)

Student Life (university ministry) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indications of notability apparent Richard001 (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 03:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 03:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment if kept it should be renamed, as it is exceedingly generically named. 70.51.11.115 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • To what? I don't mind keeping it if someone can show that it is somehow notable, but I haven't been able to find any reliable sources that mention it. Richard001 (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That is why the article has the disambiguator, "university ministry", I expect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --I had not heard that Campus Crusade for Christ had reorganised and renamed its university ministry, but CCC is (or at least was) an important Christian Ministry (of American origin) and I have no reason to believe that Student life is not also notable. The article claims that it operates in various univerities. This means that it is much more than a student club, of the kind that is too often deleted. I am in England and cannot vouch for the veracity of the article. Oppose renaming, since the name used appears to be that under which it operates. The disambiguator should be retained, becasue it might refer to other things. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The Campus Crusade for Christ seems to have a few news hits in Australia, so Campus Crusade for Christ (Australia) would be notable I would think. If this organization is the same one but renamed, then I would think the notability follows. Kevin (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Campus Crusade for Christ. It's the same organization, it just uses a different name in Australia/New Zealand. The CCC article even has a section for "Around the world" which currently just has a long list of links. The content could easily be merged there and encourage expansion of that section to more than just a directory. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Given the lack of material for writing an article (not a single source mentioning Student Life has been provided) I would support merging it into a section of the (also small) article Campus Crusade for Christ. If it is kept I think it needs to be trimmed down because there is a lot of crufty material of anon/one edit wonder origin in there (much of it from a merge from Student Life Australia. Richard001 (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Peterkingiron. SL is definitely notable as a student organisation in Australia and is notable in more than one location. JRG (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Please provide sources. Richard001 (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Why should I have to find sources to placate people like you that do no research whatsoever? Have a look and find them yourself. I know SL is notable, but I simply don't have time to find sources. JRG (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I have had a look for sources. Why should I read comments from people like you that insist something is notable without offering a single source? Richard001 (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Richard001. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Campus Crusade for Christ, as this is essentially just a local branch of that organisation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC).
• Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There are 4 hits for the specific search term "Campus Crusade for Christ Australia" [2]. I haven't been able to find anything for the New Zealand branch. I'm not sure how much those four sources focus on the subject - they may just be passing mentions. Richard001 (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, subsidiary of a larger organization. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:21, 10 June 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.

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. It is clear that this article has serious issues that need to be resolved, but currently there is no consensus to delete the material outright. A few editors have proposed merging this material elsewhere to help alleviate notability concerns - whether the best option for the future of this information is to merge it or improve the standalone article is one that should be carefully considered by editors actively maintaining the article. Shereth 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhaktivedanta Narayana

Bhaktivedanta Narayana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable religous leader. Part of non notable religious institute. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are lacking entirely. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable from non notable institution. Questionable sources at best. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I fail to see how your argument is stronger than the last time you AFD'd this article. What's changed? Chopper Dave (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article still does not state, much less prove, how its subject is notable - it only states that he is a "spiritual leader." Also the sources are not reliable. The monthly publication, Sri Bhagavat Patrika, is self published. (That this journal is a self publication was not pointed out in the last debate and was given as a reason for voting "Keep.") Also, the website used for the article Pure Bhakti, is also self published. This religious leader's guru, and his religious institute, are red links, as both are non notables. In all, the article still fails to have any reliable sources with information to meet Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per recent discussion in previous CfD. I don't think anything has substantially changed since then. The individual is mentioned in third-party works that are referenced. Yes, the article needs work, but I don't see deletion as the answer here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• The references in which the subject is mentioned, aside from the self published ones, are concerned with the subject of ISKCON. These texts are about ISKCON. In passing, there is mention of Bhaktivedanta Narayana and his relationship with ISKCON. If these references are accepted as reliable sources, then I can see how a Redirect or a Merge to the ISKCON page might be more appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete This article has failed to establish notability and is an advertisement of sorts. It is impossible to account for all people named Narayana in India. Dozens of them are svamis, you will find it with the google seach for Narayana svami or Narayana Maharaja. Please also refer to WP:ENC. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FREE ADVERTISING SPACE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR UNSOURCED MATERIAL. Not a single claim or information in the article have sources and the whole article does not comply with WP:CITE guidelines, a search of reliable sources doe not support any of it. One can not rely on blogs or self published material to establish notability. All other references quoted are occasional and incidental, have nothing to do with the notability of the person and are often not from reliable sources and are not about the subjects notability.

Living persons bio must abide by:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

This entry shows absence of all and thus should not exist. None are found that directly relate to the living person called Bhaktivedanta Narayana. He is mention exclusively in passing and number of hits does not warrant the inclusion.

Find sources: Bhaktivedanta Narayana — news, books, scholar

MBest-son (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

*Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. The subject, by himself, does not meet notability criteria. Shovon (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, meets Notability basic criteria as the subject of secondary published material (see The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant And Change), and he is quoted in Light on Death: the Spiritual Art of Dying by Phillip Jones, to name a couple sources offhand. --MPerel 02:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• The subject of the book, The Hare Krishna Movement, is ISKCON (also known as the Hare Krishna Movement). In order for this reference to establish notablity on Bhaktivedanta Narayana, he would have to be the subject of the text - and he is not. He is only mentioned in a few pages out of this 448 pages text, which is on ISKCON. This article is lacking in references which cite him as the subject. These must be demonstrated, otherwise, the subject still fails even the basic criteria for notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The references in which the subject is mentioned, aside from the self published ones, are concerned with the subject of ISKCON. It is important to point out that in these materials, he is only mentioned in passing - there is only mention of Bhaktivedanta Narayana and his relationship with ISKCON. If these references are accepted as reliable sources, then I can see how a Redirect or a Merge to the ISKCON page might be more appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Admin closing note Application of Notability Criteria:

A claim was put forward (by MPerel) that Bhaktivedanta Narayana has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This is incorrect and he was not a subject of any such material and was only noted in passing. Thus Basic criteria is not met. Maybe such material exists in Hindi, thus subject should be part of Hindi Wiki. As far as English publications it is clear that the depth of coverage is not substantial, and multiple or any independent sources are not present that are needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability, and this is evident from the above searches. No other sources contribute towards proving the notability of the subject. The only sources are self-published and unreliable. Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. As accepted the barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Additional criterias are not applicable and no evidence of any of the same is found or can be found from any reliable sources in English. No works focus upon the subject. See: WP:INHERITED that provides cover for this policy and requres at best a redirect or merge to ISKCON that is the subjects inherited notability object. MBest-son (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Not notable per MBeston. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per MPerel, Bhaktivedanta Narayana is the subject of part of a chapter, pp.37-39, subtitled Narayana Maharaja, in The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant And Change and is mentioned on pp138, 215, 249 of that book. One hardly needs a whole book on a person to prove notability! In addition, cited therein are other works, like The "Routinization of Charisma" and the Charismatic: The Confrontation Between ISKCON and Narayana Maharaja -- Irvin H. Collins (Srila Das), which is chapter 13 of an academic book published by Columbia University Press. Just these two are sufficient, and high-quality, reliable sources. In addition, I note that the language of a source is irrelevant to its reliability and whether it can be used to prove notability.John Z (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• These are two sources, but they do not show the subject to be notable. One source is a chapter in a book on ISKCON, the other is a few pages in a book on ISKCON. Both of these two sources Do Not state that Bhaktivedanta Narayana is notable. It is important to note that these two sources only discuss Bhaktivedanta's relationship with ISKCON. If Bhaktivedanta Swami's relationship with ISKCON is notable then these sources could be used on the ISKCON page to discuss Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

As far as I understand it, I do not think your interpretation of the relevant guidelines is a common or standard one, or one which enjoys much support at Afd or elsewhere. Of course, if one subtracts whatever is notable about a person, including his relationships with other notable subjects, then one is left with nothing much. But this style of argument is a useless tautology. There is no requirement that a source state its subject is notable; that there is a substantial amount of material is enough. There is much more in each source - where this person's name is in the title - than usually deemed necessary.John Z (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is part of an ongoing campaign to discredit Srila Narayan Maharaja, The nominator 125.24.241.246 did so anonymously. To redirect his page to a page of his detractors at ISKCON is unacceptable. This article DOES have sufficient, and high-quality, reliable sources.Syama (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note The main reference for this article, cited above, is provided from a chapter in a book on ISKCON called The Hare Krishna Movement. This link above, "Routinization of Charisma" is just one chapter in this book - and it is about ISKCON. Bhaktivedanta Narayana is only mentioned in this chapter - it is about one issue - Bhaktivedanta's relationship with ISKCON (for a specific period of time). References on this gentleman's relationship to ISKCON are not enough to establish notablity as long as the subject himself remains non notable. The subject is still about a non notable and sources have not been provided to show the subject's notablity outside of his relationship to ISKCON. If Bhaktivedanta Swami's relationship with ISKCON is notable then these sources could be used on the ISKCON page to discuss Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON as a section of the ISKCON page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to ISKCON per above. Culturalrevival (talk) 17:06, 10 June 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.