Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishnaology

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Krishnaology

"Krishnaology" gives only one google hit. Besides the study of Krisna should be either at Krishna or at Vaishnavism Andries 17:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep - "Krishnaology" is a notable entry. It is a term used by two prominant Vaishnava theologians and is easily distinguished from the historical, literary, and archaelogical study of the Hindu god Krishna. The most distinguished scholar of Hindu Studies at the University of Cambridge, Dr. Julius Lipner, has vouched for this term. There are two quotes from Dr. Lipner that shed some light on this discussion below. The first references Tamala Krishna Gosvami and his work on the Krishnaology of Prabhupada's teachings. The second references the value of his dissertation, the subject matter of which is Krishnaology.

• "Neither I nor the Faculty ever had reason to regret our decision. Goswami seemed naturally to slip into the academic groove. Accustomed to giving guidance from a position of authority, he also had the ability to place himself with the right attitude at the receiving end educationally. He accepted guidance with grace and humility, read voraciously, worked with great intensity to deadlines, and wrote with clarity and power. His doctoral topic was the 'Krishnaology' of ISKCON's founder, Swami Prabhupada. His personal knowledge of Prabhupada's teaching was vast, he was extremely well-informed about scholarship on the Society, and he had innovative and penetrating ideas. In my view, he succeeded in researching his subject matter with integrity, the requisite criticality, and much originality."

• "It is my intention to seek to publish the thesis in his name after due formalities have been seen to. If this can be accomplished, the thesis, I am sure, will be of great benefit to ISKCON and the scholarly world."

These statements were published in an academic journal by Dr. Lipner. Such statements by a prominant scholar of Hindu studies (from the University of Cambridge), carry significant weight. If anyone believes that this article is worthy of deletion, they must be able to conter such statements.

MAC 28 May 2005

• In that case, you might want to put in a vote and back your statement up. Abstain. Mgm|^(talk) 20:20, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One Google hit says it all. Somebody's doctoral thesis is not notable. RickK 23:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep We have an article on Christology, and there is another usage here. Google is not everything. Septentrionalis 18:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --W(t) 01:14, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 04:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this term is too underdeveloped for an article, needs more than two scholars. Buddha, (comment by user:Andries vote made by anon ip user:198.214.51.1)
• Delete, neology. Imc 20:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 11:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not only a neologism, but a chimaera of Sanskrit and Greek, which is really really wrong. Frjwoolley 02:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.