Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramananda Prasad

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. Michig (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramananda Prasad

Ramananda Prasad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

He was successful, but I don't see that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sending WP:APPNOTE to Tone and RightCowLeftCoast. Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Thanks for notifying me of this AfD and I am interested in seeing what the wider community's opinion is on the notability of the author. I am still on a wikibreak recovering from San Diego Comic-Con, but will take some time to respond. Also perhaps Tokyogirl79 would like to put in their two bits given the admin's recent attempt to improve NAUTHOR.

I contested a prod placed by the creator of this AfD in August 2014, due to notability based on WP:AUTHOR. I believe my point still stands. The books translated by the subject of this AfD, crediting the subject of this AfD as the translating author, have been widely cited by numerous reliable sources. Now I am not a subject matter expert on Indian culture or literature, so it'd be best to sort this deletion into the Hindu and Indian delsort sections to get their opinion on the notability of the subject of this AfD.

Overall, I would say a Weak Keep is my present opinion, as outside of the subject's translation of Hindu text, I can not outright say the subject is notable; that being said, meeting WP:AUTHOR should be sufficient (just like how a baseball player that has only been in a single MLB game is considered notable (yes I know that is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST train of thought argument).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take a look for sources, but offhand I'd say that the multiple reprintings of the Bhagavad Gita could (or at least should) count towards something since that's not really a small task, assuming that he directly translated it (as opposed to basing his work on an existing translation, akin to how some will create a new interpretation of the Bible). I'm not overly familiar with the publisher so I'm not sure if they'd hold as much weight as say, something published through an academic press. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Basically, it's somewhat easier for things to go through multiple reprintings with other publishers than it is with an academic press. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge into Bhagavad Gita. This intro, which is a mainstream reliable sources, says that there are over 200 English translations of the Bhagavad Gita. They analyze some of them, and, in particular, conclude that Prasad's one is inaccurate. Other than that, I was not able to find any reliable sources for Prasad, which are independent of the society he founded.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2015 (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.