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 Consensus to keep - including nominator who altered his vote to keep. --VS ^talk 10:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prahladananda Swami

[edit]

An ISKCON swami, but not a notable individual and no independent reliable sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Ism schism (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources, and individual is not notable even if sourced. Ism schism (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or merge to a more general article about ISKCON swamis --B.C ^{say what ?} 01:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fewer than 48 Swami in ISKN. Plenty of on-line third-party sources (see Google - 4000 hits). --Oldak Quill 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The individual must be notable and sourced with independent reliable sources. This has not been demonstrated. Also, the amount of Google hits does not establish notability. Ism schism (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per User:OldakQuill's comments above. Also Prahladananda Swami has a very significant role within ISKCON. This could be expanded into a much better article. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Gouranga, where are these reliable sources? They are not in the article. If you know a reliable source from which this information can be verified, please do state where. A website owned by the subject of the article is not a reliable source. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say that we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability. --SJK (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Using the above logic, all ISKCON swamis would have a page on Wikipedia. This is not a small group. Articles on ISKCON swamis must, like other Wikipedia articles, establish their notability of people and establish this through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This has not been done in this article. Ism schism (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It just needs some sources. It need to be WIKIFIED not DELETED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN per WP:BIO due to lack of reliable sources. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the reasons stated elsewhere I believe membership in ISKON's 48-member Governing Body Commission is sufficient evidence of notability to justify a keep, just as is the case for membership in other religion governing bodies like the College of Cardinals or the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. Note that this applies only to senior religious leaders, not to every Swami. It also only applies to religious denominations of a reasonable size and notability/significance (an unaffiliated local church can't evade notability criteria by calling itself a denomination and its minister the denomination's head). ISKON sources would be reliable for identifying who is a senior ISKON leader. That said, an individual's own web site can't be used to establish the facts identifying that individual as notable. Independent sources, religious or secular, have to be used for this purpose in every case. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prahladananda Swami is NOT a member of the Governing Body Commission. Please see, [1]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "In 1990 he was appointed to head the GBC committee of Health and Welfare. In 1991, the GBC made him the head of a ministry for members of the renounced order of life" [2] - basically Prahladananda Swami heads up the organisation matters of all Swami's (spiritual leaders in the renounced order) in ISKCON. This should be made clear in the article. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also official list of ISKCON Sannyasis (or Swamis) from 2007 which includes Prahladananda Swami. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment GourangaUK has provided a link showing Prahladananda Swami as a member of the faculty of Bhaktivedanta College and provided a list of ISKCON swamis, of which he is a leader. I feel, these are two reliable sources which could meet the minimium criteria for references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GourangaUK's references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note for Administrator - nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:17, 26 February 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.