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. — Aitias // discussion 23:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radhanatha Swami[edit]

Non-notable swami, vanity page, no reliable sources, etc... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources. Expressindia.com i good. Graham Dwyer, Richard J. Cole - 2007 is good. Journal of Vaiṣṇava studies, 2004 is good.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidas (talk • contribs) 07:19, 19 July 2009

Strong keep He's one of the most prominent gurus in ISKCON, there're some reliable sorces cited in the article too.--Gaura79 (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the proof that, "He's one of the most prominent gurus in ISKCON?" Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now - I think we need more community input on this point. I did some google book searches. I found one book reference, in an index. Given a slightly different spelling, "Radhanath Swami", lends 2 different results. I don't have enough [any] background on this subject so I can't really say if these are relevant or different people, or anything else. Google scholar yields similar results. (one or two hits on the name; no clarification it's the same individual or not). I'm skeptical of what may be largely primary-source published sources, but on the other hand, there seem to be some sources here. I think any admin would be wise to extend the period for at least another week. Shadowjams (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep He is a major person in ISKCON and I don't know much about it. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 11:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A major person in ISKCON?" Not sure that meets notabitly requirements. Where is the proof of notability for a Strong Keep? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's an ISKCON swami, a member of the Governing Body Commission and an initiating guru.--Gaura79 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I tend to agree that once the unsourced material is removed and considering his biography was reviewed by Prof. Francis X. Clooney, S.J.. "A Hare Krishna Swami Tells All". www.americamagazine.org. [1] he certainly makes it to Wikipedia (even the review is informal and bloggy, still reviewer commands some respect). I would appreciate if people stop adding blogs as the references such as dandavats.com and vnn.org and since User:Gaura removed all the such the article reads much more in line with BLP policies. I would go over it further and prune it more for unsourced material, lots of work to bring it up to the standard but the subject is notable, since 1994 and especially in the recent years. Wikid ^as© 22:27, 20 July 2009 (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.