Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta Narayana (3rd nomination)

Bhaktivedanta Narayana

Non notable. The main reference for this article is provided from a chapter in a book on ISKCON called The Hare Krishna Movement. This chapter, "Routinization of Charisma," is just one chapter in this book - and it is about ISKCON and Bhaktivedanta Narayana is mentioned concerning his 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. Assocication with a notable subject does not confer notablity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable. Previous discussion resulted in no consensus on whether to merge relevant info. Relevant information should be merged to appropriate articles. By himself, the subject is non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a spiritual leader this guy is not notable. What has he done? Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is rather abusive to open a new nomination four days after the last one closed as no consensus without making new arguments. The nomination argument here was made in the last discussion. Nothing has changed to merit a new nomination. GRBerry 04:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith as my intention is not to be abusive. Also, I disagree with you as the reasoning for deletion has changed. The previous reasoning was, "Non notable religous leader. Part of non notable religious institute. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are lacking entirely." The reasoning given above for the nomination has been specified to address the particular issues not addressed in the last discussion. This new discussion is a new chance to reach concensus. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also argued "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)", which is your argument now. Closing admins evaluate all the arguments; you are not making a new one here. GRBerry 13:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Bhaktvinode. Non notable spiritual leader. Culturalrevival (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per GRBerry. The previous AfD, by the same nominator, was closed only 4 days ago after more than 12 days of discussion. Give it a break for a few weeks at least. Nsk92 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per GRBerry and Nsk92. The arguments and reasoning have not changed, nothing new which was not said at the last, very recent AfD.John Z (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Per yesterday’s discussion… Three votes above are concerned with the process of deletion and are not immediately concerned with the subject’s notability. My intention in re-nominating this article is to attract more editors to this discussion – after a no consensus discussion. I apologize if I have offended any editor or caused any unnesessary harm, as this is not my intent. I will list this discussion in more deletion sorting pages that are relevant to hopefully include other editors. Also, I believe that future discussions should focus on the notability of the subject instead of voting on the process. This will assist editors in reaching a clear consensus on the notability of this subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you offended anyone (certainly not me), but renominating an article for an AfD only four days (!) after a 12-day long AfD discussion was closed is, in my opinion, abusing the process, regardless of your motives. You are not helping your case by doing this. If you think the previous AfD was closed incorrectly, you can file a WP:DRV case. Otherwise, give it a break for a while. Nsk92 (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment The result of the last debate was no consensus. I was unaware that a debate that resulted in no consensus could be put forward for deletion review. I thought that process was only for deleted pages. In the future, I will post no consensus debates through the deletion review process. Thank you for pointing this out. Ism schism (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to ISKCON per 2nd nomination discussion. Culturalrevival (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New information The main reference for this article, "The Routinization of Charisma and the Charismatic: The confrontation between ISKCON and Nayayana Maharaja," is a chapter in a book on ISKCON. This chapter is written by a person, who according to the contributors notes on page X is, "associated with the organization of Narayana Maharaja." This person Irvin H. Collins, authors the only reference in the article that is concerned with the subject. Per Basic criteria - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Irvin H. Collins is, "associated with the organization of Narayana Maharaja." As this is the only source that is concerned with Bhaktivedanta Narayana, he is not the subject of secondary sources "independent of the subject." Presently there are no reliable sources for this article, and the information about him does not even state how he is notable. The article is about a non notable and has no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fine example of POV pushing if I ever saw one. "the only reference in the article that is concerned with the subject"? Really?! "the only reference in the article"? What about the other reference listed in the article, the book "The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant and Change" by Graham Dwyer (Editor), Richard J. Cole (Editor), available at Barnes&Noble? The book is also cited in the article and it has a chapter about Bhaktivedanta Narayana written by Richard Cole. This chapter is partially available for preview at googlebooks:[1]. A cursory look at this preview shows that it provides in-depth coverage of the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment on your "has no reliable sources" claim. Apart from the book by Dwyer and Cole, even if what you say about the chapter in the other book cited in the article The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious by Edwin Bryant, Maria Ekstrand is correct, the Bryant-Ekstrand book is still a reliable source that is fine as a primary source. The book is published by Columbia University Press and is edited by two independent academics, see the publication notes atBarnes&Nobles:[2]. Even if Collins' chapter in that book does not go towards establishing notability of the subject (if your claims about Collins are correct, and I'd like for someone else with access to the book to verify that), the book and the chapter still qualify as a reliable source, per WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, I disagree with your position here, if I understand it correctly. Ism schism's statements about Collins are correct, see [3]. But as I wrote below, do we demand that biographers of rabbis be catholics? Bryant, Ekstrand Columbia University Press and E. B. Rochford below consider Collins to be reliable and independent enough scholarship. That's more than enough to satisfy the guideline, and there are the other sources I gave below, one of which, www.vnn.org, was recently removed from the article by IS.John Z (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the first reference is a former ISKCON devotee who is now a member of Bhaktivedanta Narayana's organization. This is not an independent sources. Aside from this, the second reference concerns a chapter in a book on ISKCON, of which two pages mention Bhaktivedanta Narayana. There are no other independent sources to confirm notability or independent perpective. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning references cited In the above texts you cited, Bhaktivedanta is not the subject of discussion. ISKCON is the subject of discussion. Aside from the article I discussed above, of which the primary one is written by an associate of Bhaktivedanta Narayana, there is the book by Dwyer and Cole. In this text - Bhaktivedanta Narayana is only discussed in pages 37 through 39. Two pages are not enough to establish notablity. I do not understand how questioning two pages is as you say, "POV pushing." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict, so I repeat some of Nsk92's points) Some of your above statements are not correct. The Collins article is not the only clearly high-quality RS source being used in our article, as you seemed to realize during the last AfD, when you said "These are two sources," - the other one having been The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant And Change. That the book with Collins' article was published by a major university press is sufficient guarantee of independence. The guideline does not demand that biographies of rabbis be written by christians. The introduction to this CU Press volume, not written by Collins, notes that the schism with Bhaktivedanta Narayana was the "most recent and divisive." - more argument for his notability, as are passing mentions in the book by other authors. There seems nothing wrong with using the bio at www.vnn.org to show notability and as a source, or even purebhakti.com as additional source to help write the article. The proper course is to make sure the article is not a puff piece mindlessly praising him, not to eliminate a clearly quite notable subject and sourced and uncontentious material about him. If there are genuine concerns about the reliability of a source, I suggest taking the matter up at WP:RS/N. Yet other unimpeachable sources are Hare Krishna Transformed By E. Burke Rochford, from NYU Press, with a couple of relevant pages, or The Hindu World By Sushil Mittal, G. R. Thursby, from Routledge, a single volume reference on all of Hinduism, relevant page not viewable online. Again, this article should be speedily kept, per the many arguments of the many different experienced editors in the three AfDs. This is not a close call.John Z (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above sources only discuss Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON. Also, the first source is written by a non notable author/devotee of Bhaktivedanta Narayana Irvin H. Collins. The second source only mentions him in a few pages out of many hundreds of pages devoted to its subject, ISKCON pages 37 through 39. Other self published materials can be useful but are not reliable sources for establishing notabilty. In all, Bhaktivedanta Narayana is not the subject of secondary sources independent of the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, that is what I meant by POV pushing. First you claiming that "the only reference in the article that is concerned with the subject"? when in fact there are two and then you claim that the article has "has no reliable sources" when again in fact there are two. The book of Dwyer and Cole has a section (pages 37-39, as you say) that is entitled "Narayana Maharaja". This section, yes, only two pages long, provides in-depth and specific coverage of Bhaktivedanta Narayana. Whether or not this is enough to establish notability is a separate question, but there is no doubt that the Dwyer and Cole book is a secondary reliable source which contains in-depth coverage of the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]