Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISKCON Guru System

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Guru System

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

This is a research paper, and is OR. The subject has no notability. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ISKCON is an organization that promotes an alternative form of Hindu worship, which itself is a good reason to consider it dubious (WP:RNPOV). The article has few independent sources. But that is not very surprising as ISKCON is a obscure organisation and not much independent research has been done about it. The organisation publishes its own books, papers and probably has it own very journal! Those sources does not satisfy WP:SPS. Vote to delete. — Fιηεmαηη ^[talk] 18:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs a lot of work but the subject is clearly notable. ISKCON is a well-researched religious institution (especially considering its size). The topic of ISKCON guru is especially well covered in academic works. See for example [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Gaura79 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for finding this book. ISCKON is well researched - but for all the negative reasons. The book description suffices to show the dubious nature of the organization. There have been child abuse scandals, women's right issues and so on. I am not saying that we should have not have an article on ISCKON because of the scandal issues associated with it. But the article would have to be entirely rewritten to adhere to a NPOV. I don't think many people would be willing to do that. Again, I am sure that it would be vandalized, wasting the time of a lot of people. At most the article should be merged with the main ISCKON article. — Fιηεmαηη ^[talk] 08:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with the main ISKCON article doesn't make sense because the ISKCON guru subject is a well-covered one. There're plenty of RS which discuss it in detail so there's more than enough material for a standalone article. Whether the whole article or parts of it is OR should be discussed on the article's talk page. Even in its present state, the article's content is supported by several RS. I don't see any valid reasons to delete or merge it. "ISCKON is well researched - but for all the negative reasons" - can't agree with you on that. Try reading those books and other scholarly works on ISKCON and you will see that the reasons that motivated western scholars to study ISKCON were mainly positive.Gaura79 (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Gaura79. ISKCON is notable not only as a branch of modern Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but also as an important NRM and movement within Neohinduism. ISKCON's institutions are not unresearched or nonnotable. Finemann's opinion that ISKCON is "dubious" etc. is irrelevant to the question of notability, and is is therefore, needless to say, totallt beside the point. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although ISKCON is notable, this article is OR, and is not notable, and does not meet Wiki criteria for an article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never said that the article should be deleted because of ISCKON's dubious nature. I also asserted that ISCKON is notable. What I said was that it would be very difficult to write an article about ISCKON that adheres to a NPOV. And realize that much of the ISCKON propaganda deviates from the standard Hindu guidelines. My concern is about having an article about a possibly inflammatory topic. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 13:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That is not my concern. The issue why this article should be deleted is that it is Original Research, and a Coatrack. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an essay that is OR, specifically because of this, it would not be appropriate to merge it with the larger ISKCON article. While some info in this article might be real, and cites sources - it is a COATRACK - and OR. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work to improve not deletion.Shyamsunder (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This article list many references, but none deal with the subject that this article is attempting to articulate. That makes this article Original Research and a Coatrack. While there is information in the article relevant to ISKCON, a merge would be UNDUE. Unless there are some reliable sources that state why and how this subject is notable and thus deserving its own article; it should be deleted or moved to a userfied page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you've never verified the refererences in the article. Because if you would, you would find out, for example, that three chapters in the book Shinn, Larry (1987). The Dark Lord: Cult Images and the Hare Krishnas in America. Philadelphia: Westminster Press deal with the subject of Guru in ISKCON. And so is the ninth chapter in Rochford, E. Burke (1985). Hare Krishna in America. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. You could also check another Rochford's monograph.Gaura79 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these sources exist. It is the article that is Original Research/Coatrack. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are in the article, so your claim that "This article list many references, but none deal with the subject that this article is attempting to articulate" is unsubstantiated.Gaura79 (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there are sources, that does not make the article notable. This article is a COATRACK for a bunch of different ISKCON related subjects which might make for a good essay, but is OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is a COATRACK for a bunch of different ISKCON related subjects" - after reading the article I just can't agree with you. It deals with institution of guru in ISKCON, it's history and controversies.Gaura79 (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2011 (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.