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. ✗plicit 13:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Dharma[edit]

Krishna Dharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. No major awards or achievement. He has written a few translations of Indian mythology books, but none of them seem to be notable. There are a few book reviews, other sources are self published, dependent and connected with ISKCON. In previous AfD, it was claimed that his books have been translated to other languages. First those are translations of the original Indian work. Secondly those translations serve as propaganda material for ISKCON, which funds their printing. It cannot be taken as a sign of notability. Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to meet the guidelines for notability: His work has been cited in academic texts ([1] , [2], [3], [4]) and journals ([5]), and his Mahabharata, at least, seems to have been reviewed in a number of publications other than the Guardian link in the article (India Today, the Quest, etc.). Hardly seems like the stuff of "propaganda" to me. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is best known as the author of popular literary adaptations of ancient Indian epics. --E.Imanoff ^Snatch 20:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — E.Imanoff (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Elshadiman (talk · contribs). [reply]

  Says who? All translators of Indian epics are not notable. No evidence his work is popular. Venkat TL (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. His work might have received coverage, but notability is not inherited, so that coverage does not apply to him. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The "Dwyer & Cole (2007)" reference in the article is a bit misleading, as the source is "Notes on Contributors" section of the book (one of the essays in the collection is by the subject). The other mentions found above are in similarly in bibliography sections. Guardian article (Meek 1999) is on the book he wrote and doesn't focus on the subject. hemantha (brief) 18:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My BEFORE failed to find anything and Hemantha analysis below demolishes the references in the article. Seems like the subject fails NAUTHOR/GNG. Not all authors are notable, and translators are even less likely to be so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 5 February 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.