660:(Edit conflict, so I repeat some of Nsk92's points) Some of your above statements are not correct. The Collins article is not the only clearly high-quality RS source being used in our article, as you seemed to realize during the last AfD, when you said "These are two sources," - the other one having been The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant And Change. That the book with Collins' article was published by a major university press is sufficient guarantee of independence. The guideline does not demand that biographies of rabbis be written by christians. The introduction to this CU Press volume, not written by Collins, notes that the schism with Bhaktivedanta Narayana was the "most recent and divisive." - more argument for his notability, as are passing mentions in the book by other authors. There seems nothing wrong with using the bio at www.vnn.org to show notability and as a source, or even purebhakti.com as additional source to help write the article. The proper course is to make sure the article is not a puff piece mindlessly praising him, not to eliminate a clearly quite notable subject and sourced and uncontentious material about him. If there are genuine concerns about the reliability of a source, I suggest taking the matter up at
776:
subjects, then of course one is left with nothing. But that is not an argument, but a useless observation. The scholarly world considers
Bhaktivedanta Narayana notable, and thus so do we. The demand that the authors of articles on him be notable is new and has nothing to do with Knowledge policies. What you are calling self-published does not appear to be that; finally I gave several more unimpeachable scholarly sources above. I and I daresay most of the other experienced "keep" editors have no enthusiasm for Bhaktivedanta Narayana, but much for WIkipedia policy and rational argument. Personally I just picked this AfD at random. The arguments for keeping and notability are very strong; tens of thousands of articles would be deleted if rules were interpreted the way you seem to understand them.
519:, authors the only reference in the article that is concerned with the subject. Per Basic criteria - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Irvin H. Collins is, "associated with the organization of Narayana Maharaja." As this is the only source that is concerned with Bhaktivedanta Narayana, he is not the subject of secondary sources "independent of the subject." Presently there are no reliable sources for this article, and the information about him does not even state how he is notable. The article is about a non notable and has no reliable sources. Thanks.
949:. Bhaktivedant Narayana's relationship with ISKCON is noted as being part of the "Rasika-Bhakti Heresy." Once again the subject of the article is ISKCON. A part of this paper notes Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON - and he is not the subject of this work. He is mentioned in the article as part of one of many "heresies" in ISKCON. None of the above sources are concerned with Bhaktivedanta Narayana as a subject of himself. No scholarly studies of books or academic essays consider Bhativedanta Narayana notable outside of his relationship with ISKCON. Thanks.
427:
offended any editor or caused any unnesessary harm, as this is not my intent. I will list this discussion in more deletion sorting pages that are relevant to hopefully include other editors. Also, I believe that future discussions should focus on the notability of the subject instead of voting on the process. This will assist editors in reaching a clear consensus on the notability of this subject. Thanks.
723:
section (pages 37-39, as you say) that is entitled "Narayana
Maharaja". This section, yes, only two pages long, provides in-depth and specific coverage of Bhaktivedanta Narayana. Whether or not this is enough to establish notability is a separate question, but there is no doubt that the Dwyer and Cole book is a secondary reliable source which contains in-depth coverage of the subject.
595:. But as I wrote below, do we demand that biographers of rabbis be catholics? Bryant, Ekstrand Columbia University Press and E. B. Rochford below consider Collins to be reliable and independent enough scholarship. That's more than enough to satisfy the guideline, and there are the other sources I gave below, one of which, www.vnn.org, was recently removed from the article by IS.
1065:. I made a mistake, as I was reminded on the number of occasions by other editors in different context. I have since improved somewhat. But this article does NOT reflect any reliable sources that are quoted in the article. Thus the sources can be used for other article, and this one to be deleted as all material for
1166:. This is followed by its major divisions since, with the analogous Swaminarayan Gadi. In a merge the original Gaudiya Matha could be discussed as it is in the article with a new section on present day communities that identify as being part of the Gaudiya Matha added for each one that has reliable sources. Thanks.
970:- this article does have sufficient references to stay, however it should be renamed to reflect the concerns with the notability being a 'reflected notability'. I suggest that the name of the article should reflect an obvious conclusion of the previous AfD(2). It should not be a biography, but really an article on
927:, and which covers him in several paragraphs under the heading The Rasika-bhakti Heresy. That's 5 scholarly sources and one news source. Finally, it should be speedily kept because this 3rd AfD was started only 4 days after the 2nd, with very little new argument; this is not the normal or proper procedure.
1036:, was Bhaktivedanta Narayana a member of the Gaudiya Matha? I am open to this idea but he seems to have come after the Gaudiya Matha fell apart. Also, concerning renaming... As the references presently listed above are concerned with the subject of ISKCON (and its heresies and schisms) maybe a rename to
1011:
Since it was me who introduced reliable references into this article, if article is renamed I would suggest adding Hare
Krishna Transformed (The New and Alternative Religions Series) by E. Rochford ISBN 0814775799, pp. 170-171 - again in the context of it being a schismatic movement not being about B
639:
In the above texts you cited, Bhaktivedanta is not the subject of discussion. ISKCON is the subject of discussion. Aside from the article I discussed above, of which the primary one is written by an associate of
Bhaktivedanta Narayana, there is the book by Dwyer and Cole. In this text - Bhaktivedanta
836:
Have you read all the above? What Ism says is hard to reconcile with policy and usual practice. Ism, have you looked at all the refs? There is far, far more than occasional mentions - a chapter in a book, a subtitled subchapter in another book, a bio at a news site, mentions on a couple of pages in
886:
The reason why I dispute the statement that academia considers him notable is that
Bhaktivedanta Narayana is not "the subject of secondary sources independent of the subject." If there were academic articles written about him by scholars, and/or academic writtings in which Bhaktivedanta Narayana is
426:
Per yesterday’s discussion… Three votes above are concerned with the process of deletion and are not immediately concerned with the subject’s notability. My intention in re-nominating this article is to attract more editors to this discussion – after a no consensus discussion. I apologize if I have
722:
See, that is what I meant by POV pushing. First you claiming that "the only reference in the article that is concerned with the subject"? when in fact there are two and then you claim that the article has "has no reliable sources" when again in fact there are two. The book of Dwyer and Cole has a
615:
devotee who is now a member of
Bhaktivedanta Narayana's organization. This is not an independent sources. Aside from this, the second reference concerns a chapter in a book on ISKCON, of which two pages mention Bhaktivedanta Narayana. There are no other independent sources to confirm notability or
443:
I don't know if you offended anyone (certainly not me), but renominating an article for an AfD only four days (!) after a 12-day long AfD discussion was closed is, in my opinion, abusing the process, regardless of your motives. You are not helping your case by doing this. If you think the previous
168:
Non notable. The main reference for this article is provided from a chapter in a book on ISKCON called The Hare
Krishna Movement. This chapter, "Routinization of Charisma," is just one chapter in this book - and it is about ISKCON and Bhaktivedanta Narayana is mentioned concerning his relationship
871:
Well, I apologize for assuming differently. (This is Ism's 3rd AfD nom for this, BTW, there's more in the others and that he excised from the article, IMHO incorrectly.) But this standard seems far more deletionist than usual at AfD. How many peer reviewed, academic press, scholarly references,
851:
Yes John Z, I have read all of the above. I read everything again and looked through the article and its reference a second time and my opinion hasn't changed. You may be correct that my and Ism's general standards about notability are much stricter than yours in which case we are relatively more
801:
to John Z/Nsk92 - Stated above... "The scholarly world considers
Bhaktivedanta Narayana notable," - please offer some references for this. Aside from a two page mention, and an article written by one of his devotees concerning his relationship with ISKCON, there is very little evidence to suggest
467:
The result of the last debate was no consensus. I was unaware that a debate that resulted in no consensus could be put forward for deletion review. I thought that process was only for deleted pages. In the future, I will post no consensus debates through the deletion review process. Thank you for
914:
Well, by usual standards, "just pp 37-39" (which are subtitled
Narayana Maharaja) is more than enough for one RS. A "lone chapter in a book" is much, much more than enough. Look at other AfDs. Collins counts and is independent because it is in an academic book, because of the editors and the
891:
of secondary sources independent of the subject, then there would be reason believe that academia considers him notable. What is offered as the first source is a lone chapter in a book. This chapter is written by a non notable author/devotee (and I say this because the author is not a religious
265:
Please assume good faith as my intention is not to be abusive. Also, I disagree with you as the reasoning for deletion has changed. The previous reasoning was, "Non notable religous leader. Part of non notable religious institute. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are
775:
NSK, I replied to some of your comments above; I disagree on one point. Ism Schism, as I said at the last AfD, your interpretation of the guidelines are nonstandard, and illogically restrictive. If one eliminates everything notable about a person, like their relationships with other notable
739:
I respect your enthusiasm for the subject, but being mentioned in a book for two pages does not amount to a reference that establishes notability. Also, a chapter in a book, written about ISKCON's relationship with
Bhaktivedant Narayana, by a devotee of Bhaktivedanta Narayana, is a very weak
672:
By Sushil Mittal, G. R. Thursby, from Routledge, a single volume reference on all of Hinduism, relevant page not viewable online. Again, this article should be speedily kept, per the many arguments of the many different experienced editors in the three AfDs. This is not a close
572:. Even if Collins' chapter in that book does not go towards establishing notability of the subject (if your claims about Collins are correct, and I'd like for someone else with access to the book to verify that), the book and the chapter still qualify as a reliable source, per
837:
a couple of other scholarly books. And these are only the quite high quality sources. A general one volume, very scholarly treatise on all of Hinduism, an enormous subject, sees fit to mention him. This is a great deal of evidence for notability by usual standards.
169:
with ISKCON (for a specific period of time). References on this gentleman's relationship to ISKCON are not enough to establish notablity as long as the subject himself remains non notable. Assocication with a notable subject does not confer notablity. Thanks.
543:
by Graham Dwyer (Editor), Richard J. Cole (Editor), available at Barnes&Noble? The book is also cited in the article and it has a chapter about Bhaktivedanta Narayana written by Richard Cole. This chapter is partially available for preview at
1107:: There was an error in timing of closing AfD2. Last comment in AfD2 was by Culturalrevival - Redirect and merge on 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Shereth closed it on 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC) just one hour and twenty minutes after - clearly in
593:
52:
keep rather than an outright keep closure so as not to create the impression that the content itself is being endorsed by this discussion. I would suggest the nominator refrain from bringing this up for a little while - even
1209:
249:
95:
90:
266:
lacking entirely." The reasoning given above for the nomination has been specified to address the particular issues not addressed in the last discussion. This new discussion is a new chance to reach concensus. Thanks.
213:
Subject is not notable. Previous discussion resulted in no consensus on whether to merge relevant info. Relevant information should be merged to appropriate articles. By himself, the subject is non notable. Thanks.
758:
I have no enthusiasm or interest in the subject. Like JohnZ, I picked this AfD at random, during an hour when I had time to look at the AfD listings. And I agree with JohnZ that this one is not even a close call.
1069:
has to be carefully sourced. Because the material above is non-biographical I would suggest deleting at this stage, and only then creating of other article that reflects reliable sources. You are right, and
1091:
per GRBerry, Nsk92, John Z. Even if people think things have changed or more information has come to light or whatever, it's would still be good form to wait a reasonable amount of time between AfDs.
982:- one must be very careful and at the same time one should not use notability of one subject to automatically support a notability of another subject. As the last comment on the articles talk page by
915:
press. There are the two other academic works I cited above, one a general work on all of Hinduism!, and www.vnn.org with a short biography, which satisfy the conditions. There's also this article,
897:
697:
641:
100:
290:. These texts are about ISKCON. In passing, there is mention of Bhaktivedanta Narayana and his relationship with ISKCON. If these references are accepted as reliable sources, then I can see how a
545:
872:
which IMHO cannot reasonably be called passing mentions, on a subject are necessary?! I have no idea how one can reasonably dispute the statement that academia considers him notable.
893:
693:
516:
85:
535:
A fine example of POV pushing if I ever saw one. "the only reference in the article that is concerned with the subject"? Really?! "the only reference in the article"? What about
561:
One more comment on your "has no reliable sources" claim. Apart from the book by Dwyer and Cole, even if what you say about the chapter in the other book cited in the article
692:
The above sources only discuss Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON. Also, the first source is written by a non notable author/devotee of Bhaktivedanta Narayana
978:- which will reflect the subject's notability in as per good RS quoted. After all its not that you can write just about anything in Wiki and especially considering this is
511:
The main reference for this article, "The Routinization of Charisma and the Charismatic: The confrontation between ISKCON and Nayayana Maharaja," is a chapter in a book on
665:
161:
252:
closed as no consensus without making new arguments. The nomination argument here was made in the last discussion. Nothing has changed to merit a new nomination.
189:
48:. It seems to be the consensus of those involved that it is too early to consider this topic again since the closure of the last AfD. I am noting that this is a
515:. This chapter is written by a person, who according to the contributors notes on page X is, "associated with the organization of Narayana Maharaja." This person
402:
340:
per GRBerry. The previous AfD, by the same nominator, was closed only 4 days ago after more than 12 days of discussion. Give it a break for a few weeks at least.
376:
1040:. Bhaktivedanta Narayana is just not notable enough for a stand alone article, maybe this would be a way to salvage the information in the article. Thanks.
565:
by Edwin Bryant, Maria Ekstrand is correct, the Bryant-Ekstrand book is still a reliable source that is fine as a primary source. The book is published by
562:
128:
123:
132:
115:
896:. The second source only mentions Bhaktivedanta Narayana in a few pages out of many hundreds of pages devoted to its subject, ISKCON, please see
700:. Other self published materials can be useful but are not reliable sources for establishing notabilty. In all, Bhaktivedanta Narayana is not
1287:
1270:
1245:
1225:
1200:
1175:
1149:
1126:
1117:
1095:
1083:
1049:
1018:
1004:
958:
936:
909:
881:
866:
846:
829:
811:
785:
768:
749:
732:
713:
682:
653:
625:
604:
585:
556:
528:
501:
477:
457:
436:
417:
391:
366:
349:
330:
310:
275:
256:
240:
223:
204:
178:
68:
306:) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)", which is your argument now. Closing admins evaluate all the arguments; you are not making a new one here.
669:
644:. Two pages are not enough to establish notablity. I do not understand how questioning two pages is as you say, "POV pushing." Thanks.
1140:
From what I have read, Bhaktivedanta Narayana leads a sub-group of the Gaudiya Matha called the "Sri Kesavaji Gaudiya Matha." Thanks.
357:
per GRBerry and Nsk92. The arguments and reasoning have not changed, nothing new which was not said at the last, very recent AfD.
592:
Nsk92, I disagree with your position here, if I understand it correctly. Ism schism's statements about Collins are correct, see
17:
975:
1122:
I understood that from the above but I still don't think an immediate CfD is appropriate. We should give it a rest, already.
1111:
as discussion was still going strong. That is a procedural error and one of the reasons for this nomination as is obvious.
286:"The references in which the subject is mentioned, aside from the self published ones, are concerned with the subject of
924:
1278:- As mentioned above, it's been to short a period since the last AfD, and there seem to be a couple decent sources. --
1012:
Narayana, maybe article can be deleted as our admin DaGizza suggests and a new article created instead on the topic?
971:
570:
540:
1037:
696:. The second source only mentions him in a few pages out of many hundreds of pages devoted to its subject, ISKCON
1302:
1196:
566:
497:
326:
119:
36:
1301:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
819:
Notability for the subject has not been established. An occassional mention as Ism schism says is not enough.
111:
74:
1163:
236:
1266:
1061:
and inserted them in the article, but I could not find any reliable sources as to the biography of the
990:
article or merged into it - and I agree - it will be UNDUE, but maybe after its renamed it can have a
232:
1283:
1279:
1192:
1171:
1145:
1045:
954:
905:
807:
745:
709:
649:
621:
524:
493:
473:
432:
413:
387:
322:
303:
271:
219:
200:
174:
1221:
1123:
1092:
1159:
994:
section in it, if editors of the ISKCON article agree. If not renamed I would support merge into
57:
closures require more than a few days to cool off before dragging the article through AfD again.
1241:
892:
studies scholar but an elementary school teacher that is a devotee of Bhaktivedanta Narayana)
863:
826:
63:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1262:
932:
877:
842:
781:
678:
600:
362:
947:
The Perils of Succession: Heresies of Authority and Continuity In the Hare Krishna Movement
917:
The Perils of Succession: Heresies of Authority and Continuity In the Hare Krishna Movement
1167:
1141:
1041:
950:
901:
803:
764:
741:
728:
705:
645:
617:
581:
569:
and is edited by two independent academics, see the publication notes atBarnes&Nobles:
552:
547:. A cursory look at this preview shows that it provides in-depth coverage of the subject.
520:
469:
453:
428:
409:
383:
345:
299:
267:
215:
196:
170:
1235:
remove an extraneous accidental double signature in the middle of the user's own quote.
1217:
661:
1188:
1108:
1066:
1062:
1033:
995:
979:
445:
1233:
Re: the previous AfD being closed then modified, it appears it was only modified to
1258:
1237:
1113:
1079:
1071:
1058:
1014:
1000:
991:
857:
853:
820:
573:
307:
253:
58:
149:
928:
873:
838:
777:
674:
596:
358:
1212:
was closed and then user modified the record. This needs to be investigated.
760:
724:
577:
548:
449:
341:
946:
916:
668:
By E. Burke Rochford, from NYU Press, with a couple of relevant pages, or
1210:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta Narayana (2nd nomination)
987:
983:
612:
512:
489:
287:
920:
563:
The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious
231:
As a spiritual leader this guy is not notable. What has he done?
1295:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
248:
It is rather abusive to open a new nomination four days after
96:
Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta Narayana (3rd nomination)
91:
Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta Narayana (2nd nomination)
702:
the subject of secondary sources independent of the subject.
541:"The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant and Change"
1057:. I have to be very honest. At first AfD I have suggested
986:
article editor - It hardly can be placed as a part of the
1158:
An example of how this could be done is the page on the
923:, which had been presented to the annual meeting of the
1234:
283:
156:
145:
141:
137:
298:
to the ISKCON page might be more appropriate. Thanks.
101:
Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta Narayana Goswami
1162:. In this article the original group is mentioned,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1305:). No further edits should be made to this page.
321:per Bhaktvinode. Non notable spiritual leader.
611:The author of the first reference is a former
448:case. Otherwise, give it a break for a while.
1076:and this is not a material for that article.
190:list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions
8:
403:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
86:Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta Narayana
444:AfD was closed incorrectly, you can file a
377:list of India-related deletion discussions
537:the other reference listed in the article
976:History of Bhaktivedanta Narayana Schism
401:: This debate has been included in the
375:: This debate has been included in the
188:: This debate has been included in the
1261:. This is too soon after the last AfD.
83:
802:that this subject is notable. Thanks.
664:. Yet other unimpeachable sources are
1105:Comment on the speedy keep suggestion
7:
81:
740:arguement for notability. Thanks.
24:
1138:Comment on merge to Gaudiya Matha
616:independent perpective. Thanks.
972:Bhaktivedanta Narayana Movement
492:per 2nd nomination discussion.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
640:Narayana is only discussed in
1:
1030:On merging and/or renaminging
921:ISKCON Communications Journal
1038:History of Schisms in ISKCON
925:American Academy of Religion
637:Concerning references cited
1322:
1032:. Concerning a merge to
1288:17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1271:17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
1246:15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1226:22:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
1201:19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
1176:12:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
1150:12:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
1127:22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
1118:13:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
1096:03:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
1084:23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
1050:22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
1019:19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
1005:17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
959:22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
937:16:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
910:12:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
882:10:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
867:09:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
847:08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
830:07:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
812:06:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
786:06:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
769:06:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
750:06:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
733:06:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
714:06:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
683:05:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
654:05:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
626:05:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
605:06:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
586:05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
567:Columbia University Press
557:05:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
529:01:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
502:15:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
478:10:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
458:06:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
437:00:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
418:00:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
392:00:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
367:22:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
350:20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
331:14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
311:13:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
276:05:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
257:04:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
241:04:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
224:03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
205:03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
179:03:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
69:22:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1298:Please do not modify it.
1216:proposal is acceptable.
666:Hare Krishna Transformed
32:Please do not modify it.
1164:Swaminarayan Sampraday
112:Bhaktivedanta Narayana
80:AfDs for this article:
75:Bhaktivedanta Narayana
1191:, not notable alone.
943:Rasika-bhakti Heresy
898:pages 37 through 39
698:pages 37 through 39
642:pages 37 through 39
468:pointing this out.
1160:Swaminarayan Faith
486:Redirect and merge
44:The result was
420:
406:
394:
380:
207:
193:
1313:
1300:
1116:
1082:
1017:
1003:
945:is discussed in
894:Irvin H. Collins
694:Irvin H. Collins
517:Irvin H. Collins
407:
397:
381:
371:
194:
184:
159:
153:
135:
34:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1303:deletion review
1296:
1193:Culturalrevival
1124:Good Ol’factory
1112:
1093:Good Ol’factory
1078:
1074:did fell apart
1013:
999:
670:The Hindu World
509:New information
494:Culturalrevival
323:Culturalrevival
155:
126:
110:
107:
105:
78:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1319:
1317:
1308:
1307:
1291:
1290:
1273:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1153:
1152:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1099:
1098:
1086:
1052:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1009:
1008:
1007:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
856:than you are.
833:
832:
814:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
773:
772:
771:
753:
752:
717:
716:
686:
685:
657:
656:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
609:
608:
607:
532:
531:
481:
480:
461:
460:
440:
439:
421:
395:
369:
352:
314:
313:
280:
279:
278:
260:
259:
243:
226:
208:
166:
165:
106:
104:
103:
98:
93:
88:
82:
79:
77:
72:
46:technical keep
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1318:
1306:
1304:
1299:
1293:
1292:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1274:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1189:Gaudiya Matha
1187:and merge to
1186:
1183:
1182:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1135:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1110:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1034:Gaudiya Matha
1031:
1028:
1027:
1020:
1016:
1010:
1006:
1002:
997:
996:Gaudiya Matha
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
966:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
913:
912:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
890:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
870:
869:
868:
865:
864:
861:
860:
855:
850:
849:
848:
844:
840:
835:
834:
831:
828:
827:
824:
823:
818:
815:
813:
809:
805:
800:
797:
796:
787:
783:
779:
774:
770:
766:
762:
757:
756:
755:
754:
751:
747:
743:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
730:
726:
721:
720:
719:
718:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
688:
687:
684:
680:
676:
671:
667:
663:
659:
658:
655:
651:
647:
643:
638:
635:
634:
627:
623:
619:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
568:
564:
560:
559:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
533:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
479:
475:
471:
466:
463:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
442:
441:
438:
434:
430:
425:
422:
419:
415:
411:
404:
400:
396:
393:
389:
385:
378:
374:
370:
368:
364:
360:
356:
353:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
328:
324:
320:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
264:
263:
262:
261:
258:
255:
251:
247:
244:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
225:
221:
217:
212:
209:
206:
202:
198:
191:
187:
183:
182:
181:
180:
176:
172:
163:
158:
151:
147:
143:
139:
134:
130:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
108:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
66:
62:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1297:
1294:
1275:
1259:WP:SK 2(iii)
1254:
1230:
1213:
1208:- previous
1205:
1184:
1137:
1104:
1088:
1075:
1072:Gaudiya Math
1054:
1029:
967:
942:
888:
862:
858:
825:
821:
816:
798:
701:
689:
636:
544:googlebooks:
536:
508:
485:
483:
482:
464:
423:
398:
372:
354:
337:
318:
316:
315:
295:
291:
250:the last one
245:
233:Bhaktivinode
228:
210:
185:
167:
64:
59:
55:no consensus
54:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1255:Speedy Keep
1089:Speedy keep
854:deletionist
539:, the book
355:Speedy Keep
338:Speedy Keep
1280:Explodicle
1263:Jim Miller
1168:Ism schism
1142:Ism schism
1042:Ism schism
951:Ism schism
902:Ism schism
900:. Thanks.
804:Ism schism
742:Ism schism
706:Ism schism
646:Ism schism
618:Ism schism
521:Ism schism
470:Ism schism
429:Ism schism
410:Ism schism
384:Ism schism
300:Ism schism
268:Ism schism
216:Ism schism
197:Ism schism
171:Ism schism
1218:MBest-son
1114:Wikidās ॐ
1080:Wikidās ॐ
1015:Wikidās ॐ
1001:Wikidās ॐ
998:article.
282:You also
50:technical
704:Thanks.
465:Commment
292:Redirect
162:View log
1238:Balsa10
1231:Comment
1206:Comment
1055:Comment
919:in the
889:subject
690:Comment
662:WP:RS/N
308:GRBerry
254:GRBerry
129:protect
124:history
1185:Delete
1067:WP:BLP
1063:WP:BLP
988:ISKCON
984:ISKCON
980:WP:BLP
968:Rename
929:John Z
874:John Z
839:John Z
817:Delete
778:John Z
675:John Z
613:ISKCON
597:John Z
513:ISKCON
490:ISKCON
446:WP:DRV
359:John Z
319:Delete
288:ISKCON
284:argued
229:Delete
211:Delete
157:delete
133:delete
1214:Merge
1109:error
1059:WP:RS
992:WP:SS
859:Gizza
822:Gizza
799:Reply
761:Nsk92
725:Nsk92
673:call.
578:Nsk92
574:WP:RS
549:Nsk92
450:Nsk92
342:Nsk92
296:Merge
294:or a
160:) – (
150:views
142:watch
138:links
16:<
1284:talk
1276:Keep
1267:talk
1257:per
1242:talk
1222:talk
1197:talk
1172:talk
1146:talk
1046:talk
955:talk
941:The
933:talk
906:talk
887:the
878:talk
843:talk
808:talk
782:talk
765:talk
746:talk
729:talk
710:talk
679:talk
650:talk
622:talk
601:talk
582:talk
553:talk
525:talk
498:talk
474:talk
454:talk
433:talk
424:Note
414:talk
399:Note
388:talk
373:Note
363:talk
346:talk
327:talk
304:talk
272:talk
246:Keep
237:talk
220:talk
201:talk
186:Note
175:talk
146:logs
120:talk
116:edit
60:Sher
974:or
488:to
405:.
379:.
192:.
65:eth
1286:)
1269:)
1244:)
1224:)
1199:)
1174:)
1148:)
1048:)
957:)
935:)
908:)
880:)
845:)
810:)
784:)
767:)
748:)
731:)
712:)
681:)
652:)
624:)
603:)
584:)
576:.
555:)
527:)
500:)
476:)
456:)
435:)
416:)
390:)
365:)
348:)
329:)
274:)
239:)
222:)
203:)
177:)
148:|
144:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
122:|
118:|
1282:(
1265:(
1240:(
1220:(
1195:(
1170:(
1144:(
1044:(
953:(
931:(
904:(
876:(
841:(
806:(
780:(
763:(
744:(
727:(
708:(
677:(
648:(
620:(
599:(
580:(
551:(
523:(
496:(
484:*
472:(
452:(
431:(
412:(
408:—
386:(
382:—
361:(
344:(
325:(
317:*
302:(
270:(
235:(
218:(
199:(
195:—
173:(
164:)
154:(
152:)
114:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.