Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami (2nd nomination)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted article recreated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prajnana Kesava. The individual lacks notability, and is not the subject of multiple reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is unclear to me how this person would be considered a notable follower of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura based on the lack of non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the key/main sources for the article is this book by Bryant&Ekstrant (2004) published by Columbia University Press. Another source includes Hare Krishna Transformed, published by NYU Press, another academic source. I have not checked the rest but that's clearly "non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party sources". Green Cardamom (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article now has verifiable sources, so it is incumbent on the nominator and others calling for deletion to explain how their verification of these sources leads them to believe that the subject is not notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Article was deleted as consensus shows in first Afd. Of the two sources above, neither show notability, as the individual isn't the subject of either work. Culturalrevival (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He is considered a saint in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. At the last AfD the article had no reliable sources at all. Also, to be notable, he doesn't have to be the main subject of a scholarly work, he just have to receive significant coverage in it.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not a reposting of the same or a substantially similar article to that deleted in the previous AfD, and thus isn't a candidate for speedy deletion that way. WilyD 20:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply As the nominator of this article; I have not requested a speedy delete for this Afd. What I am suggesting is that the subject is still not notable, and the addition of these new sources does not suffice to make this individual notable. As such, the article should simply be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- he is a prominent leader who is covered by multiple independent sources. However the sources mainly refer to him as Kesava Maharaja. Wikid ^as© 08:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

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.