Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math
=[[Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math]]=
:{{la|Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math}} – (
:({{Find sources|Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math}})
Non notable pilgrimage site, too small and have no independent reliable sources to comply with the policy on inclusion. Wikidas© 23:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:I guess if there was an independent article or a book written about the subject there could be a reason, or a possible reason to keep it. There is however no evidence of any notability, as the google search shows, thus delete is the only possible solution. I am not opposed to userfication, if there is some evidence in the third party reliable sources, even if they are not accessible, but these needs to be shown or listed here. Wikidas© 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::Lack of interest can be attributed to it being completely unknown object without any attraction or position in any sources? --01:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Wikidas© 15:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Searched the internet. Found no third-party WP:RS to assert its notability. The references in the article are not really RS. 1 mentions the temple in passing reference, the other calls it a "scared" place.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Redtigerxyz. Or at the very best, merge it into Gaudiya Math. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
: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) 01:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I firmly believe that the proposed deletion of this article - Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math is nothing but a biased attitude of some user/person who probably prefers ISKCON or A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada over it (this article). In fact, the Hare Krishna Movement started from Nabadwip - the birth place of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu - where Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math is situated, it is also known as “the mother of the Gaudiya Maths” and it was founded by Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami, who was a disciple and follower of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and a notable friend of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada too (a Krishna follower brother of Bhaktivedanta Swami). A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami founded ISKCON after going to the West so he become notable, as it appears, even than his Guru or teacher and also than his Krishna follower brothers! Here 'notability' appears to be a relative word.
However, irrespective of what the google search shows but the above mentioned facts clearly reflect said Math's status and position in Hare Krishna Movement by the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
It may be noted that since the Math is the mother of the Gaudiya Maths where the truly religious administrators (monks) of this Math devotes them more in religious activities rather than endeavouring to market their movement/religious activities in the West, unlike A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (the ISKCON founder did, so it (the Math) may not appear in google the same way ISKCON does but this incident certainly does not mean that it is a non notable pilgrimage site! I have personally visited the Math and it is huge, during "Nabadwip Parikrama" thousands and thousands of devotees eat, rest and stay in ths math.
Even after this, if this article is deleted then that would be an act of prejudice and also an un-thought act. Nothing more I wish to say about proposed deletion of said article.
Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
::Nobody stops you from expanding the Gaudiya Math article. But you prefer to ignore it for some reason. This particular Matha (out of hundreds) is not particularly notable. See: WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I am sure you visited this building. But there are no sources for your claims. Can you please use google books or some other source and find more sources that are published by reliable publishers? Thank you, and please see the answer to your question on your talk page, that you have pasted here. Wikidas© 10:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
: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.