Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (2nd 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 Speedily deleted per G4. DRV opened at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link

Speedy Delete This is a book advertisement that has already been through the Afd process which resulted in deletion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- lets wait friend , when the article creator is willing to collaborate we need to wait , seeing his intentions he seem's to have been highly involved in this book so he'll be keep on recreating and it wont be nice for both side , let us see if more editors would turn up for a debate so that we may have a common result weather or not to delete . speedy isn't always a solution for all situations . if this article really needs a rewrite or some change then we must insist the creator for it , moreover the creator of this article seems to be ready for it . so let's wait . --Pearll's sun (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC) — Pearll's sun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ism schism (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

This is not a book advertisement. It's an information page about a book relating to a theological issue within the Hare Krsna movement. The external links section includes links to various critical perspectives on the book and on the issues it raises.

I missed the Afd process, and found out today, after the fact, that my page was deleted. On March 19th 2008, user "Syama" had written: "Mild Keep Notable, needs a rewrite. I think that the controversy surrounding this book makes it notable, that so many are stirred to action, article should focus on the NPOV of the controversy not just provide links to forum topics."

I'm willing to re-write the article, or parts of it, if deemed needed. The book is notable. The controversy surrounding the book is relevant to those within the Hare Krishna Movement and to those observing or studying it from outside. This is my first Wikipedia article, and I'm learning about how to present things so that they are acceptable to Wikipedia.

Below are some links to articles and spoken word audio, relating to the book, and the associated controversy, from various perspectives:

Delete was the result of the first nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that the previous deletion was the result of the first nomination, but I did not participate in that process. I did not give my input on why the article should be allowed to continue to exist. I was not aware that the process was taking place. I found out about it today. On March 23rd, 2008, user DGG wrote the following in the History section of my page: "books can not be speedied". I've recreated the page. I'm willing to discuss. --AlexandreJ (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)--AlexandreJ (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

         o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1185/1/Prominent-Issue/
         o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1207/1/Considering-Things-Fully-and-Rationally/
         o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1178/1/Genuine-Dialogue-and-Deeper-Realizations-of-Truth/
         o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succJun11_06.html
         o http://www.iskconirm.com/Dhira_Govinda.htm
         o http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0208/ET15-7499.html
         o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/10/danavir.swami.on.dhira.govinda.das/index.html
         o http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2003/03/023.html
         o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1177/1/Concerning-the-Satvatove-Experience/
         o http://gbcsaysdontgohere.com/
         o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/SuccFeb4_03_02.html
         o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/31/dhira.govinda.on.prominent.link/index.html
         o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent1.mp3
         o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent2.mp3
         o http://www.b-i-f.com/Letter%20from%20Dhira%20Govinda%20Das.htm
         o http://zavestkrisne.org/ritviki_neznanje.htm
         o http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/02-07/editorials1312.htm

--AlexandreJ (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4. Recreating material that failed an AfD is the wrong way to go about things. Take it to DRV instead. DarkAudit (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is DRV? On March 23rd, 2008, user DGG wrote the following in the History section of my page: "books can not be speedied". I've recreated the page. I'm willing to discuss.--AlexandreJ (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review. This was not a speedy the first time through, it was a regular AfD that resulted in a delete. Recreating that page is not accepted procedure, and that recreated page is subject to a speedy deletion per criteria G4, recreation of previously deleted material. You can raise concerns and discuss at DRV. In the meantime, this recreated page should be speedily deleted. DarkAudit (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate in the original process. I've now posted to DRV. If I understand correctly, the article was nominated for deletion on March 16th, and was deleted on March 22nd, 6 days later. User "Ism schism" wrote: "Book advertisemet with no reliable third party sources." I've added links to various critical perspectives on the book. --AlexandreJ (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Speedy delete vote. When creating this page, without realizing it, I also created another page located at, Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (2nd nomination). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i don't understand why books that has notability should be speedied ?? we dont work on any set of tough rules moreover any add type or spam concerning articles may be brought under "speed delete" but why books ?? i think we need to discuss a lot with a lot more editors before speeding , else the article creators intention will be undermined , cant hurt any the author is willing to collaborate so we must assist him to get out of the situation instead of speeding his article . the recreation of the article shows that the creator wants to be a part of wikipedia and the article has some meaning for . negotiations should have its role , this article doesn't seem to spam wiki or use it as a basement for any add . lets wait to see what the article creator wishes to do . yup i agree any recreated material must be speedily deleted but this recreation doesn't seem to bring any damage to wiki . i think we need to wait a while and discuss enough before we delete it . this book seems to be notable and a speedy will surely hamper wiki's intention to be self sufficient . i respect both the editor who brought this article to AFT which will help the article to better if needed and the article creator's intention . this article sure needs a high debate ... --Pearll's sun (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC) — Pearll's sun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ism schism (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Pearll's sun, thank you very much for this. I appreciate it.--AlexandreJ (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in a complicated process involving technicalities. I created a page. The page was nominated for deletion. I was not aware of this. I work full-time and don't check the page every day. The page was deleted. I've recreated the page. I've now posted to DRV, but it turns out I did it in the wrong place. I'm not sure in which section of DRV I should post my request/concerns. The process of appeal is not clear to me, and appears needlessly complex. I believe my page is valid and I want to speak my piece about why it should remain. I'm an educated person with two University degrees, and I am nonetheless having difficulty making sense of all of the technicalities at play in this process. If I understand what to do, I will do it. I request that the page remain, at least long enough for me to understand why it was labeled as a "book advertisement" and what changes I need to make so that the article is acceptable to Wikipedia. The book is notable, this was already discussed, months ago.

Please understand that I am not as savvy as you are about Wikipedia's hair-splitting rules, and regulations. --AlexandreJ (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. crassic!^[talk] 01:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Speedy delete per nom." mean? --AlexandreJ (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons are based upon the nominator, User:Ism schism. crassic!^[talk] 02:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that your reason is that the artcile was nominated by this particular person?--AlexandreJ (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means his reasons for his delete endorsement are the same as the one who nominated the article for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article has a history of being advised on the article's relevance. Please note a conversation from 2 years ago on the same subject we are discussing here, [1]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of those previous discussions was to allow the article to remain. I was naturally surprised to see the article once again scheduled for deletion. I'm willing to do the needful and modify the article so that it is more in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.--AlexandreJ (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merits of this article are not relevant to the current speedy nomination. This page was recreated in violation of established Wikipedia procedures after a losing AfD. The correct procedure is to speedy delete this page according to G4 criteria, recreation of deleted material. Any discussion with regard to recreating the page should go to deletion review. DarkAudit (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review page is long and detailed. I posted something there, but afterwards I noticed that I posted in the wrong place. Where should I post my request to allow the page to remain? What is the simplest way to do this? I'm sure there must be a user-friendly way to voice concerns about article deletions on Wikipedia. It would be a shame to have content deleted primarily because the user is not comprehending the appeal process clearly. If you can point me to a link where I can state my case in a simple manner, to the appropriate person(s), I will appreciate it.

Wikipedia is about creating content for research purposes, not about playing the game of who knows more technicalities. You are experts, you know the various complex and nit-picking editorial rules. I am not an expert, you will beat me if we play this as a game. I want to create a page. If Wikipedia is cooperative, not everyone will be experts in the minutiae of editorial policies. If article deletion is played as a sort of game, then naturally those with more technical knowledge of the rules will win. If the article was allowed to remain after the first set of discussions, mentioned by Ism schism, why was it once again scheduled for deletion? I recreated the article because I disagreed with the deletion, and was not aware that such a process was in motion. --AlexandreJ (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)— 70.51.244.190 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ism schism (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I am 70.51.244.190. I had forgotten to log in. --AlexandreJ (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you suggesting? Ism schism (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a deletion review request on the author's behalf. I hope I was clear as to why you would request the review. Outside of the G4 violation, I am neutral. DarkAudit (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL! I was just doing the exact same thing :) I've deleted the page as G4, though, and I guess the DRV is now open. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:40, 24 March 2008 (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.