Back to Godhead : And therein lies the issue, no WP:SIGCOV from  independent, reliable, secondary sources.  Onel 5969 TT me 09:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There is lots of independent/non-Iskcon coverage of BTG: a quick Google Books search shows, eg, [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] Dāsānudāsa ( talk ) 11:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm the one who reverted the redirect.  The magazine came up in conversation, and I came to Wikipedia to find out a few facts about it, dates of publication and so on.  I was surprised to see the article had been removed from Wikipedia - surprised enough to come out of my self-imposed Wikipedia retirement to restore it.  It may be somewhat obscure today, but there were times during its 80 years and ongoing history, especially in the 1960s and 1970s, when the magazine was very well known as the main publication of the " Hare Krishna Movement ".  There are certainly valid criticisms of the movement, I can understand that some people, perhaps like the editor who removed it, feel some antipathy towards it, and the magazine does not pretend to have a neutral point of view itself.  Nevertheless, we don't delete articles just because we disagree with the subject.  It is, or was, a significant cultural phenomenon in its time, both in India and the West, and the existing article does not appear to have any serious problems with WP:NPOV , WP:PROMO , etc. I disagree that there is "no WP:SIGCOV ".  It's clearly notable enough per WP:GNG for its own article, there were already some reliable sources, and I added a couple of new citations, for example: "Bryant, Edwin; Ekstrand, Maria (2004-06-23). The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant. Columbia University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-231-50843-8".  In addition to confirming the date of establishment of the magazine, that book provides numerous other details on other pages, that go beyond a mere "passing mention", and could be used to expand the article further.  That's in addition to the several potential citations that Dāsānudāsa provided above.  77.183.180.87 ( talk ) 04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG.  Sources in article are primary, mentions, nothing with SIGCOV; BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV FOR IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 06:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there's a three page (plus citations) entry on the magazine by Christopher Hudson in Popular religious magazines of the United States (1995) [27] Jahaza ( talk ) 21:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per the coverage identified by User:Jahaza and others.  Suriname0 ( talk ) 21:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Jahaza's source is a good one.   But it's the only SIGCOV.   And a single in-depth source does not equate to passing notability.  Onel 5969 TT me 22:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (from same IP editor as above).  I'm surprised at the comments stating there is "nothing that meets SIGCOV" etc., or only one source.  There were already three reliable sources cited, and it's really not that difficult to find more, as others here have noted.  I have added a new citation, from Columbia University Press, and expanded the introduction based on it and the one I added previously.  The point of notability is not to show that a publication is of high quality, or has won awards, or is held in high esteem.  It's only so that there exists enough detail in reliable, independent sources, such that an article can be written from a neutral point of view, which is more than "half a paragraph" or "only a few sentences" ( WP:WHYN ).  There are now about ten paragraphs directly supported by multiple reliable sources.  SIGCOV doesn't require coverage "in depth", but "in detail" sufficient to write an article, and "only that it's more than a trivial mention" ( WP:TRIVIAL ).  78.54.176.194 ( talk ) 16:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A single independent and in-depth source is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.  I'm happy to reconsider if additional sources are found.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per 78.54.176.194 Dāsānudāsa ( talk ) 08:41, 5 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep