Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokanath Swami

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lokanath Swami

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

NN swami and member of ISKCON, just plain no outside notability. Sources that qualify for the GNG are lacking, beyond namedrops. Almost all sources are from ISKCON and its various organs ... as witness the "Padayatra Press" responsible for publishing all the subject's books, an ISKCON house publisher with almost all of its catalog devoted to the subject. I agree that the subject is good at self-promotion, but the article violates WP:BIO and WP:PROMO. Ravenswing 19:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Ravenswing 19:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage in reliable sources entirely independent of ISKCON can be found. Cullen328 (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Needs references independent of ISKCON. Would change if someone found suitable independent reviews of their works showing them to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Gusfriend (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend @Cullen328 @Ravenswing there are some child sex abuse allegations on the subject that was recently removed in the page history. I am not sure if that makes the subject notable. Other than that his work is not significant to merit his own article. Venkat TL (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were all sourced from ISKCON, apparently, part of their own internal muddlings, and something about which they curiously did not see fit to take to law enforcement agencies. Ravenswing 13:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There do not appear to be independent, credible, sources to establish notability here. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:1182:3F67:2F9E:3B8C (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability or proper sources. John (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG, all the non-trivial coverage is non-independent. Outside of the subject's organization there is no coverage, which is a clear indication that the subject is not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not Notable as the article fails in WP:GNG Contributor008 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2022 (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.