Talk:Bhakti Prajnan Keshava

Untitled

11:03, 2008 May 23 Master of Puppets (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Prajnana Kesava" ‎ (Wikipedia:CSD#G8 G8: Orphaned talk page of non-existent or deleted page)

Speedy Deletion Notice

Syamadas, deletion through the proposed deletion process - the article may be deleted since it matches the speedy deletion criteria. It was deleted following AfD - see log above: I would however support un-deleltion, if reliable sources are found. I can volunteer to write a proper article on this personality, please supply your list of references for this. At the moment previous deletion was filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prajnana Kesava. There is a due process that needs to follow in order to restore this article that involves supporting notability sources by notable or third party sources.Wikidās ॐ 14:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am working on this article adding back ONLY what is properly sourced, do you think we could give folks some time to form a whole article before renomination for deletion?

The best source we have is Srimad Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami – His Life and Teachings ISBN 81-86737-14-6 571p written by his dear Disciple Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja Syama (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that (according to Wikipedia and do not take it personally) its an unreliable source that is not published by a third party publication. You need other sources (while for some facts I would say you can say it is acceptable). I would suggest you find at least 3 sources that are published by a third party that mention the key elements of the claims (ie that he was an acharya or leader of a particular religious institution). I am sure you have already disregarded your own sources as being not third party. Do you want me to have a look for sources? Wikidās ॐ 17:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This book is not a self biography but written by another party that probably knew him better than many. Is this any different than say a book written by the vice president about a president? Certainly, I would appreciate your help with this (and other) articles.Syama (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If that is your view, maybe you want to present it at the WP:RSN, and see what other editors say. They have already commented that books from purebhakti.com are not WP:RS. What can I do? If it is not reliable source it is not reliable source, if you show that some academics put this book in the list of their References of at least footnotes maybe that will change the story. Let me know if you know of any reference to it or a review. Wikidās ॐ 19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actual reference is: Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja (1999). Acarya Kesari Sri Srimad Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami, His Life and Teachings. Gaudiya Vedanta Publications. p. 571. ISBN 81-86737-14-6. - it is unbelievable how you can just change the title as much? The problem is that Gaudiya Vedanta Publications is unknown and unrecognized sectarian source. I have already conceded that some plain bio material can be used from it here but only for a bio data, it will be a laugh to just assume that one can claim to be an acharya or a 'prominent leader' on ones own website, and this would be accepted as 'reliable source'. Back to this article, sources were added, so I assume nobody will put rani in the corner. Wikidās ॐ 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidās ॐ, Thanks for your help with expanding this article, and your patience with my inexperience being a wikipedia editor. Syama (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sri Radha Vallabha (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Big libraries such as the New York Public Library have plenty of books published by Gaudya Vedanta Publications/Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja. One can easily find their books through internet booksellers such as Amazon or Abebooks. At present there are approx. 60 English titles published (and many titles in other languages). Gaudiya Vedanta Publications, and its main published writer Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja (writer of B.P. Kesava Gosvami's biography) may therefore be considered significant in contemporary Gaudiya Vaishnavism.