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. Pastordavid (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathia Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Its completely unreferenced and appears like a cut and paste job from a webpage. Not notable, possible original research and no references to support notability MBest-son (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. With all the effort that's gone into writing the article (why is it that only Indians use such wonderful English words as circumambulation?) I would have hoped that the creator would have provided one short sentence to say who or what this is. The article seems to be about a sect which is organised as a charitable trust, but it also says that the term Kathia Baba refers to saints within a sect. The external link is no more informative. There are a few Google Books hits for the article title, all of which seem to be about people with this name, or whose names include this, rather than a sect, but Google doesn't display enough for us to establish whether these are in any way related to this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's take it slow on this one. I'll see if I can find a WikiProject to look at this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left a message at Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added a reliable source to the notability and the article can be stubbed and kept in this condition until any other source found. Wikidās ॐ 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I actually changed to keep - we need current Nimbarka sampradaya representatives for an upcoming project that includes it as a part of larger scheme. Wikidās ॐ 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikidas. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Article, as written, is incomprehensible to those who do not already have a background in the subject matter. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - hard to know what this is about, although it may well be notable. Perhaps scaling it back to a few paragraphs or sections in an attempt to first identify what it is, then gradually expand (with many more references) would help. Without that, I don't see that this article adds to the project. Philosophy is hard to write about; I think it's even harder when its original language is different than the one in which it's being written about. There's no WP:ITSTOOHARD policy that I know of, so I'm not suggesting we can't or shouldn't have the article or series of them, but as it is now, it's not really understandable.  Frank  |  talk  16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.