Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gopiparadhana
- 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 Delete The sources provided do not appear to meet the requirement of "significant coverage in third party sources," some of the "keep" arguments are not based on policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gopiparanadhana (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)
Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now This article is sourced, a Google search turns up additional possible sources, and many more might be found if searches for sources in another language (Hindi?) were performed. Ism schism, would you mind expanding your rationale for deletion? WP:JNN is considered an argument to avoid.A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Sure; the article is a BLP, so it has higher standards than other articles. The references used for this article are non reliable sources. Without reliable sources, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Taking that into consideration, I think the subject of this article meets WP:CREATIVE criteria #3 and #4, as his translations have been subject to significant critical attention, as documented in reliable sources. Keep.—Preceding unsigned comment added by A Stop at Willoughby (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You stated that the translations, "have been subject to significant critical attention, as documented in reliable sources." Where is the "significant critical attention" and where are the reliable sources. So far, there is a forward to a book the subject translated, and the other is a news article that mentions him in passing. This subject clearly does NOT meet WP:CREATIVE criteria #3 and #4, and as such the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He completed translation of the Bhagavata Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam). This translation has received quite a lot of reviews and is the most popular translation of this Purana. He also translated another major sanskrit text - Brihad-bhagavatamrita [1]. He works as a Sanskrit translator and editor for a leading publisher Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. He received coverage as such in this article [2]. He seems sufficiently notable to me.--Gaura79 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There are no reliable sources that attribute notability to this individual. As such, the indivudual is not notable. Please provide reliable sources if you feel that the subject is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some references from The Miami Herald article. Below I provide an exerpt from a review of Gopiparanadhana and his translation of Sanskrit text Brihad Bhagavatamrita by Joseph T. O’Connell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto. It was published as a foreword to the Brihad Bhagavatamrita BBT edition.
Excerpt from review of one of Gopiparadhana's translation. Click at right to show.
|
---|
|
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaura79 (talk • contribs)
- Can someone sign this huge blurb? -- (User) Mb (Talk) 11:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did so on behalf of Gaura70 (see above). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone sign this huge blurb? -- (User) Mb (Talk) 11:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Being a translator of works does not justify inclusion. Obviously there will be some reviews of his work, but it is not essential. Essential that he is a translator, and just being a translator is not a sufficient reason for inclusion in Wikipedia.I guess you both work for the same company: him and Gaura, thus you are anxious to keep him on. -- (User) Mb (Talk) 11:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sources added do not review of the person at hand. He is only mentioned as part of a larger project. This does not make him notable. Nothing point to him being a notable translator, if that is the claim. As is, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I presented a reliable source which addresses him directly and in detail.--Gaura79 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above "reliable source" is a part of the forward to a book this individual translated. That still does not make this individual notable, although the original text may be. Do you have any reviews from notable Sanskrit, Religion, or South Asian Studies journals? Those would work, but none exist. As is, the article is still about a person who translated a notable book - that does not make the translator notable by association. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I presented a reliable source which addresses him directly and in detail.--Gaura79 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While the Brihad Bhagavatamrita may be a notable text; this individual's translation of it is not. This translation is not a notable text in itself, nor is the translator Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
for now: WP:ONESOURCE (1 article in Miami Herald) and all other sources are ISKCON (BBT) sites, writing about an author of a BBT book (most publishers do that to sell their books). Though Brihat Bhagavatamrita is notable, but notability of the translation outside ISKCON is questionable. There are several translations of the Gita, not each one is notable as of Prabhupada or Ramakrishan. I am willing to change the vote if notability is proved by more non-ISKCON (non-BBT) references. --Redtigerxyz Talk 02:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Comment Note that the second reference provided by me is not a "BBT reference". It is a scholarly review of Gopiparanadhana's work. The fact that it was published in a BBT book does not make it BBT reference. His Brihad Bhagavatamrita translation is the first and the only full translation of this work into English, and it has received a positive review from a specialist in the field. --Gaura79 (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets be practical, if scholar X gives a unfavourable review of book A, book A is not going to print X's opinion. Forwards do sell books and can not be regarded as an unbiased review of a book. Also, the first few lines of Miami Herald (that is all I can read in the link, full article not available) seem to suggest the article is about ISKCON in general. Correct me, if I am wrong.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Miami Herald article is about ISKCON in general, with Gopiparanadhana receiving only some coverage in it. But a scholarly review is a scholarly review, no matter where it was published. The problem here, as you mentioned above, is WP:ONESOURCE. The subject of the article received coverage only in one source, which generally is not enough for a standalone article. I suggest merging the article with Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Your thoughts?--Gaura79 (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forewords in general are not independent sources and are arranged by the author. (User) Mb (Talk) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging in Bhaktivedanta Book Trust will be an WP:UNDUE. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant is to include only a limited information on him in relation with the books he translated and edited for the BBT.--Gaura79 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, limited information can be merged into BBT if a section on all BBT authors is written. --Redtigerxyz Talk 02:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant is to include only a limited information on him in relation with the books he translated and edited for the BBT.--Gaura79 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging in Bhaktivedanta Book Trust will be an WP:UNDUE. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forewords in general are not independent sources and are arranged by the author. (User) Mb (Talk) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Miami Herald article is about ISKCON in general, with Gopiparanadhana receiving only some coverage in it. But a scholarly review is a scholarly review, no matter where it was published. The problem here, as you mentioned above, is WP:ONESOURCE. The subject of the article received coverage only in one source, which generally is not enough for a standalone article. I suggest merging the article with Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Your thoughts?--Gaura79 (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets be practical, if scholar X gives a unfavourable review of book A, book A is not going to print X's opinion. Forwards do sell books and can not be regarded as an unbiased review of a book. Also, the first few lines of Miami Herald (that is all I can read in the link, full article not available) seem to suggest the article is about ISKCON in general. Correct me, if I am wrong.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also taking into consideration his position in ISKCON's Governing Body, I think he deserves a standalone article on Wiki.--Gaura79 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- the guy is the top shot in GBC Sastric Advisory committee, the group of selected knowledgeble brahminical advisors. [3] From it's inseption so far as I know. Wikidas© 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply As this is a BLP, please provide reliable sources. If none are provided, then the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Minutes of the Governing Body Comission are a reliable primary source, regardless where it is cited. Are you disputing that Gopiparanadhana is a key member of GBC SAC? Or that it does not exist?[4] [5] He is also the author of the Foreword to Surender Unto Me for example, a study material of the Vaishnava Insitute of Higher Education, also used in Bhaktivedanta College and referenced in Vedabase, not nessesarly notable, but interesting to note.[6], the website of Iskcon Ministry of Education calles him: "one of ISKCON's most renowned devotee-scholars, Gopiparanadhana Prabhu" [7]. There is a lot of work for the article to become decent or good, but the subject itself is quite notable. Wikidas© 00:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply How is this "Sastric Advisory committee" notable? And, how is being a member of this committee make one notable? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply -- Governing Body Commission is notable, and this person is Notable -- there are more than WP:ONESOURCE as per sources above. Being a guru, besides being an advisor to GBC is also notable. Sources for the article need further improvement. Wikidas© 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I agree with Cunard's articulate statement, below, on why this article should be deleted. Do you have any response to the lack of reliable sources? If not, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply -- Governing Body Commission is notable, and this person is Notable -- there are more than WP:ONESOURCE as per sources above. Being a guru, besides being an advisor to GBC is also notable. Sources for the article need further improvement. Wikidas© 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply How is this "Sastric Advisory committee" notable? And, how is being a member of this committee make one notable? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Minutes of the Governing Body Comission are a reliable primary source, regardless where it is cited. Are you disputing that Gopiparanadhana is a key member of GBC SAC? Or that it does not exist?[4] [5] He is also the author of the Foreword to Surender Unto Me for example, a study material of the Vaishnava Insitute of Higher Education, also used in Bhaktivedanta College and referenced in Vedabase, not nessesarly notable, but interesting to note.[6], the website of Iskcon Ministry of Education calles him: "one of ISKCON's most renowned devotee-scholars, Gopiparanadhana Prabhu" [7]. There is a lot of work for the article to become decent or good, but the subject itself is quite notable. Wikidas© 00:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply As this is a BLP, please provide reliable sources. If none are provided, then the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- the guy is the top shot in GBC Sastric Advisory committee, the group of selected knowledgeble brahminical advisors. [3] From it's inseption so far as I know. Wikidas© 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. At the moment, the article presents nine references; however none of them are sufficient. I have analyzed and listed the sources in the article as of this revision:
Analysis of the sources in the article
|
---|
1. This article from the Miami Herald is insufficient because it is not specifically about Gopiparadhana. From what I can see in the blurb, the article appears to be about Elliot Klein, an oceanfront condominium owner. 2. http://catalog.bbt.info/d_show_author.php?id=3&target_language=1 is insufficient because it does not appear to be a reliable source; neither does it appear independent of the subject. 3. http://www.iskconeducation.org/index.php?p=news&id=98 is insufficient because it is not a neutral, third-party source. The article begins with, "We are happy to announce that the fifth Bhagavata Sastri course at Govardhana is going to start in just 75 days from now ..." Furthermore, this article only mentions Gopiparadhana once. |
Translating books does not make an individual notable. Neither does being an advisor on a committee establish notability. Only significant coverage in reliable sources ensures an individual's notability. I do not see this here.
This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as a leader of ISKCON, roughly equivalent to a bishop. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 22 January 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.