Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romapada Swami (3rd 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. editors are split in regards to the notability of the individual JForget 22:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romapada Swami

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

Does not meet notability criteria. No secondary reliable source to support material of the article. Wikid ^as© 08:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic was disscussed on previous AfD debates on ISKCON personalities. One of the opinions that was given by Wikipedia editors, is 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.

Another criteria for notability is a membership in the Governing Body Commission. Romapada Swami is a swami, initiating guru, and a member of the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON. In other words, he's a member of a highly selective small group of religious leaders. I've made some research into the topic. Presently, there're 85 swamis in ISKCON, but only 50 of them are initiating gurus, out of those, only 22 swamis are initiating gurus and governing body commissioners at the same time. Being just a swami or an initiating guru in ISKCON doesn't make one notable, but being both at the same time does. More so if one is a member of the Governing Body Commission (which is the case here). Another opinion expressed in previous AfD debates (with which I tend to agree),

It's true that the subject is only coincidentally mentioned in sources outside of the religious hierarchy he belongs to. But he is verifiably (including according to 3rd party sources) part of that religious hierarchy. In theory this alone should not make him notable. But in practice every Catholic cardinal is, even though most pages of that kind have no references other than Catholic ones. In the absence of any explicit notability guidelines regarding religious figures, this is a de facto guideline for inclusion (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS gets IAR'd here). Unless you want to delete 90% of the cardinals of course. Frankly, I think that something similar to Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) should be drafted for religious figures as well, i.e. they should somehow stand out amongst their peers. Being part of the highest level (under the top figure) of a religious hierarchy would qualify as the religious equivalent of "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association".

ISKCON leaders can have notability established from ISKCON's sources due to ISKCON's status as a significant, recognized stream of Hinduism in the West and Wikipedia's general practice of permitting use of religious sources to establish the notability of a religion's senior leaders.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Re: Gaura79 comment: Membership or being a member of the Governing Body Commission does not seem to be a sufficient merit. Moreover no third party source mentions it (there are some 80 members in and out over the years of the Governing Body Commission) , if this is the real notability criteria, merge it to Governing Body Commission article. There is no requirement to promote advertisement of one particular GBC member over the others (note that even some of the members of the Governing Body Commission who have third party mention of the membership were recently merged or redirected to the Governing Body Commission article. Previous AfD was closed without consensus. I hope to reach consensus on this one. Wikid ^as© 11:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some previous AfD debates were closed with consensus to keep, some with no consensus. Let me again explain my point. Being just a member of the Governing Body Commission doesn't make one notable. Being just a sannyasi doesn't make one notable. Being just an initiating guru doesn't make one notable. The combination of those things does make one notable. If Romapada Swami would be a member of GBC and nothing more, this article should have been merged with the GBC article. If he would be just a sannyasi OR initiating guru OR governing body commissioner, he would deserve an article in Wikipedia only if he would get a significant coverage in RS outside of ISKCON. Also to become sannyasi or initiating guru in ISKCON is much more difficult than to become a governing body commissioner. Hence, the group of guru/sanyasis is more selective and important. Each of 50 ISKCON leaders, belonging to this group of guru/sannyasi does deserve an article in Wikipedia just as leaders of any other notable religious denomination. What to speak of group of guru/sannyasi/GBC, which presently has only 22 members. Every member of this group is notable.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus as to why a guru/sannyasi/gbc to have a separate page. Example is the summary bio of Param Gati Swami (you made it) on the Governing Body Commission article. No separate sources as to notability exist for this guru/sannyasi/gbc as well, and it is not a policy to keep unsourced BLPs on Wiki. Gaura79 - you have agreed to it.Wikid ^as©

Yes, I agreed with you on Pragosha Dasa, Malati Devi Dasi and Bhakti Dhira Damodara Swami. None of them is a guru in ISKCON, and only one of them is a sannyasi. There're some sources on Param Gati Swami online in Portuguese. He preaches mainly in Brazil, so I'm sure he got quite some coverage there over the years, but we just don't have acces to everething through Internet, right? --Gaura79 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have agreed for the following list:

Bhakti Dhira Damodara Swami
Smita Krishna Swami
Pragosha Dasa
Ramai Swami
Param Gati Swami
Kadamba Kanana Swami
Romapada Swami
Malati Devi Dasi
Prahladananda Swami-- at 11:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)it your words

There is nothing magical about combination of guru/sannyasi/gbc that lets it pass the basic guidelines of notability and third party checking and coverage? Wikid ^as© 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This combination creates a notable senior religious leader.--Gaura79 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be prepared to accept this, in approximate comparison with other religious groups. It's a rational criterion. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet notability criteria. In addition, there is a lack of secondary reliable sources to support the material in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He gets coverage here and in this 1978 book in portuguese, where some details of his life are given. He also gets some coverage here, here (he was representing ISKCON in a major court case), and here, This mention appears to be trivial. There must be more coverage of him, it is a fact that not everything is available online. He's one of the less known leaders of ISCKON, so he gets less coverage than others. I still think that any individual from a small group of about 50 religious leaders of ISKCON, who are gurus and sannyasis, deserves to have a page on Wiki. Let's not forget that senior leaders of other religious denominations are present here and nobody puts up their articles for deletion every few month. And most of those articles are solely based on religious sources. --Gaura79 (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one is a sannyasi or a guru, it is not a sufficient ground for inclusion. One has to be notable, like every other article on Wikipedia. Just because someone sometimes gives talks in universities it does not make him or her notable. There has to be substantial coverage by the third party sources that are independent of the subject -- ie text of the promotional leaflets or blurbs is not acceptable. The list of 'references' in this sometimes does not even mention the person by his name or does not even talk about him. Every significant religious leader would have a third party source that at least calls him 'leader'. This is not the case here. Wikid ^as© 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list of 'references' in this sometimes does not even mention the person by his name or does not even talk about him.

What do you mean by that? Maybe you take a better look?--Gaura79 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checked again - in Graham Dwyer, Richard J. Cole 2007 (a good source) there is no mention of Romapada Swami. Are you confusing him with Romapada dasa? All other sources also do not refer to him being a swami or a leader? Are we just to assume it based on some OR or self published promotional lecture material? Wikid ^as© 01:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This trivial mention was of another Romapada so I removed it. Practically all the independent sources cited in the article are from the period before he took sannyasa and therefore refer to him as Romapada Das or Roma Pada or Ramapada Das. He receives significant coverage in this book in portuguese, there's an article about him here (Where he's refered as His Holiness Romapada Swami by the way). He receives some coverage in 3-4 other sources. Also he was a plaintiff in a courtcase that went to the US Supreme Court, which also makes him notable. And ISKCON sources cited in the article are quite reliable when his position in ISKCON's religious hierarchy is concerned. I think this article deserves a keep.--Gaura79 (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Highly influential ISKCON figure.Pectore^talk 15:27, 9 September 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.