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/Keep. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urmila Devi Dasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(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)

No reliable sources to assert notability. Gaura79 (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The News and Books links above show hits, and a general Google search shows lots - are you sure you've done your WP:BEFORE properly here? -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: The article also has several sources, and she is already included in the ((Modern Gaudiya Vaishnavas)) template -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least couple of independent, reliable sources where the subject of the article receives non-trivial coverage?--Gaura79 (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources have been added, which are independent of the person herself and not within her editorial control - discussion is below, so I won't continue here. -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read Wikipedia:Notability (people).

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.

ISKCON sources are not independent, since she is a member of ISKCON and an advisor to the ISKCON's Governing Body. So the article should be deleted.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no need to keep haranguing everyone who voices an opinion here. We all get to air our views, and the closing admin will take them all into account. You have stated your view, and others have stated theirs - My view is that the ISKON sources are, at least to some degree, independent of the subject herself, as she is very unlikely to be able to influence them so as to add false information about herself or her status. It is also my view that she is of sufficiently notable status in a sufficiently notable organisation to warrant her own article. I'm not constantly hassling you over your opinions - so how about you respect that other people have opinions too and stop badgering us by constantly repeating your own? -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about my opinion, it's about gidelines which state

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.

This hasn't been shown in this discussion. No independent sources have been provided. Thanks.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so you repeat yourself yet again! I honestly think you'd do yourself a favour if, having made your own position crystal clear, you now just give it a rest and leave the closing admin to decide -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are independent, she is also covered in printed secondary sources, they are reliable, they are intellectually independent and independent of the subject. However (only some) are sectarial, religious sources, nothing unusual for religious bio articles. We all refer to policy of WP:V. Actual new policy for BLPs, is that "articles tagged with standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may only be removed after the article contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article." There are rather a number of RS in this article, all not self-published and all rather good sources. In fact Gaura was one of the editors of the article and has not stated 'actual' reason as yet why all of a sudden the article he was contributing to by adding verifiable information has become non-notable. See diff 1 and diff2 for rather constructive edits made by Gaura among other edits he did on the same article. Because nothing changed since last consensus based on the policy, I suggest speedy closing of the discussion under WP:SNOW. Wikid^as© 11:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is not covered even in a single published secondary sources, that is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. Right now we have three such sources in the article, in one of them she's is mentioned in passing, and the other two just cite a paper written by her. That is exactly the reason why I nominated this article for deletion. I was trying to improve but could find no sources to do that. And, by the way, I liked your joke about WP:SNOW (I hope it was a joke, right?)--Gaura79 (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Nominator seems to repeat himself and is not answering the questions: Gaura79, I ask why did you repeatedly add reliable sources here and here to the article of the BLP and make statement "She is not covered even in a single published secondary sources" - which one is not true? So the sources you added were fake? Or is it now you are trying to diffuse the situation with a joke? I do not enjoy pointing this obvious fallacy to you. There is hardly anything I can say except for noting this to closing admin. Wikid^as© 11:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will have to repeat myself again. Bhaktivedanta College is run by ISKCON and is not an independent source and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. ISKCON Communications Journal is published by ISKCON and is not an independent source. Who is not answering questions is you.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Communications Journal was not published by ISKCON but by Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, same body that publishes now the ISKCON Studies Journal and Hindu Studies Journal at Oxford, both pier review Journals. ICJ had published a bunch of clearly against ISKCON articles and reviews of books not approved for circulation in ISKCON, just as ISKCON Studies Journal did. You are confused because in its initial years it was funded in part by BBT (and never by ISKCON). BBT is a separate entity and for your information at present is at odds with ISKCON management. The Bhaktivedanta College is run by ISKCON devotees, but is an independent entity as well, under a separate management. There is absolutely no way we can accept that those edits you made in good faith are compatible with this AfD intent. There is absolutely no way you can delete article just because the majority of the sources are religious, they are published by official sites and not blogs and are obvious contribution to the notability, along with other sources cited. If a professor's or director's bio is published on the official college website, you can not claim that this source is not independent, there is sufficient oversight in all of the sources, and they are reliable. If a saint's bio was published by a religious press you can not delete the article on that basis. Wikid^as© 12:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get your information from, but I get mine from reliable sources. Google news, for example, where there're many sources which state that ISKCON Communications Journal is "One of the sect's official publications" and "The ISKCON Communications Journal is published by the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, popularly known as the Hare Krishnas". In any case, because a couple of her articles were published in this magazine, it is not surprising to find there a short bio of her (which has been quoted in the previous AfD discussion). But (sorry for repeating myself again) I just don't see how it makes her notable. Could you show me how she passses WP:Academics?--Gaura79 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question to nominator -- what has changed since the last AfD? Wikid^as© 10:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments on the keep side in the previous AfD were not based on policy. No reliable, independent sources are mentioned in the article or can be found online.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy Gaura, there is a guideline for inclusion. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Her works are cited in The Hare Krishna movement: forty years of chant and change By Graham Dwyer, Richard J. Cole and many other RS. Her works for ICJ are quite critical to ISKCON history. The fact that she is the only woman on the list should not be overlooked, there are pages and pages of the history of women's role in ISKCON and she is the subject in many sources, some not available online, but that does not make them not reliable.[1] she is also the only member of the SAC of GBC body this year a years before[2]. She is also at the center of women-gurus issue in ISKCON and it is covered by RS and community sources[3]. Being potential guru, being on SAC of GBC and being on top of number of bibliographies is as much as you can get if you are a woman in ISKCON. She is the top shot out there. Wikid^as© 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you've said is in any way even slightly relevant. Independent sources are required to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added those as you were typing it.Wikid^as© 21:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The article does not at this point contain any independent reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject. If you find any, add them to the article. Dlabtot (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- I've added a few. All seems good to me. I am waiting to get some more to cast my vote. Wikid^as© 22:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO, you haven't added any independent reliable sources to the article. I suggest you review WP:RS, WP:V, as well as the definition of the word independent. Dlabtot (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no independent reliable sources, no indication of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know well what is independent in the guideline. Most of those questions were raised of the last few years in WP:RSN as well. I am not demanding you change your vote Dlabtot. Thanks Wikid^as© 07:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote. Dlabtot (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Wikid^as© 14:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that her articles were published in ISKCON Communications Journal and later were cited in a couple of academic works doesn't make her notable. The claims Wikidas makes about her being "the top shot out there" are not backed by reliable, independent sources. She is not notable as a scholar, and she's not notable as a religious figure.--Gaura79 (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - a notable leader, sufficient independent and reliable sources provided in the article, and more were added. It would be a shame to delete a notable lady article in a male dominated leadership circle of ISKCON (nominator removed her from the template after nomination). The fact that she is the only lady this year to give general assembly sermon on the principal annual festival in Mayapur is worth keeping on the board. Some of the sources available are only sectarian sources, however clearly independent of the the subject, and thus acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability. Wikid^as© 18:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what you're talking about. In the sources provided by you her name is only mentioned in passing as an author of an article. The only exception is this book where she's described as a "slim, dark-haired woman" and as a "headmistress of the Detroit gurukula". Do you really suggest to keep her on Wiki just because she is a "slim, dark-haired woman" who once was (or still is) a headmistress of a school for Hare Krishna kids? Well, this is about all information about Urmila Devi Dasi one can find in reliable, independent sources.--Gaura79 (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No because she is given the privilege of being an approved advisor to whole Governing Body (the only female)[www.radharani.com/academy_who.html] and give a Bhagavatam in front of few thousand brahmacaris in the central temple of Hare Krishna.[4] You seems to dismiss sources at will if they are not books. These are reliable sources too. If you show me anyone who is a woman, advising to GBC and is covered by the third party sources I will write an article about them too. Wikid^as© 21:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't hold any leadership position in ISKCON. She is not a guru and she is not a member of the Governing Body Commission. The sources you provide are mostly blogs and in no way can be considered reliable sources or can be used to establish notability. Her being an advisor to the Governing Body Commission is not notable, otherwise it would be mentioned at least once in independent, reliable sources. The fact that she gave somewhere a sermon is irrelevant and doesn't make her notable.--Gaura79 (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again not true iskcon.com is an accepted reliable source used and tried over and over on the WP:RSN. These are all intellectually independent and reliable sources that comply with WP:V. It is besides other sources that are already in the article. You do not need too many sources to confirm notability. The notability is proven, and sources that are dependent on the author (like her own website) can be used for the details of this bio. I also do not see any new information coming in since last AFD, where the consensus was that she is notable. Publishing in a journal is not a criteria for notability, but information provided by the editorial board of the journal is a reliable source for notability. Giving a sermon is not in itself a reason for inclusion, but the fact that she was selected at the time when all iskcon leadership was present in the hall to give them a lecture is a notable event. I know of only one other lady who was given this. And this independent website has published her biography that confirms that she is notable and is in the position of leadership, was features on a number TV shows. Being guru means teaching in ISKCON and she is in the position of teaching and leadership. I do not accept that the sources can be classified as blogs too. At least three books, few official sites, main ISKCON official site iskcon.com and a number of other sources, including google search can not be wrong. Wikid^as© 00:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

iskcon.com maybe is a reliable source for matters pertaining to ISKCON, but it is in no way independent source. It cannot be used to establish notability. Concerning the three books mentioned by you - I already checked them and couldn't find any coverage of Urmila Devi Dasi. Her name is mentioned in two of them because the authors cite one academic paper she has written. In the remaining book she is mentioned in passing.--Gaura79 (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can not locate the links to the interviews and programs on NBC that she took part in, but you are wrong to think that the sites are dependant on the subject and it is verifiable objective evidence. None of the material is self-promotion, paid material, autobiography or product placement. No. These sources are all official sites and are obviously independent from the author and have sufficient editorial oversight and thus secure her own separate article on Wikipedia, while some sources are sectarian: iskconstudies.org, iskcon.com, www.shrikrishna.ru, www.krishna.com.ua, www.iskconirm.com, iskconeducation.org; she is not an editor on any of these nor has any influence over what they say about her, all sources cited in the article are independent from her own profiles or blogs, she is not drafting the resolutions of the Governing Body, but she is there in the resolutions for the last 10 years as the member of SAC. In other words all information provided is neutral, while source could improve if someone will find links or data of her interviews on NBC which are missing. While it is a specialized field there no reason to delete the article. Wikid^as© 07:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've restored her to that template - editors shouldn't unilaterally delete stuff while there is a discussion still going on. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that she is included in the template doesn't make her notable.--Gaura79 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not saying it does - I'm saying that deletions of any related material should wait until this discussion concludes, and then only if the decision is "Delete". -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Boing and Wikidas. Notable individual. Article was a keep in the first Afd; nothing has changed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What independent reliable sources did you use to determine that she is a 'Notable individual'? Dlabtot (talk)

The refs in the article, and other references in books. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please name the sources you are referring to? The ones that are independent of the subject? Dlabtot (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there are multiple reliable sources; please define what you mean by independent of the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (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.