Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Vacanamrtam

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 redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Vacanamrtam

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

Another collection from Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. These 34 self-published volumes have only a single independent reference: a throwaway line in a book review on a commentary on Heidegger. No reviews or discussion of the work in academic sources. Not notable. Garamond Lethe 21:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Deleteper as nom. Garamond Lethe 21:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion/redirection - no need to also "vote".--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; fails the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... but why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's and Bob's compadres at Fringe/n would cast a Delete vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Wikipedia admin will come here after seven days and simply tally the votes, ignoring the fact that there is no consensus, and decide to either delete or merge. So there's no need to dedicate much energy putting lipstick on this pig. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.

Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.

My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cornelius, it's clear you do not understand Wikipedia very well. In various AFD's several people have tried to explain to you the process and how the site functions off notability policies and guidelines. Your keep votes continuously target the community and never seem to address the concerns regarding WP:NBOOK. You must understand that these AfD may drive some away, they also keep many people interested in the encyclopedia. Without inclusion policies or guidelines to moderate non-notable content this encyclopedia would lose all value and merely become a hosting website for blogs, personal essays, and peoples profiles. The reason the encyclopedia attracts so many readers is largely because it contains useful information to the wide public and removes information not useful or unimportant content. If you feel there is a fundamental problem with Wikipedia, the AfD nominations are not the place to raise them nor are they grounds for keeping articles that are not notable. This mindset you have to not learn more about the site and it's pillars are starting to disrupt the process. If you would like a mentor, or further explanation, or help in creating notable articles, all these are available. You're trying to create a world inside one that has been built up by editors for over a decade. Let us help you. Mkdw ^talk 12:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. I wish I could vote "keep", but here's the problem: while these books are certainly worth mentioning on Sarkar's entry, the books haven't received a huge amount of commentary in reliable sources. They're mentioned here and there briefly, but not overly so. I do see where they're occasionally cited in various texts like this one, but again- it's really only here and there. I do feel that there might be sources in places that aren't on the Internet, but the problem is that I don't really know if they actually exist or if they'd be usable as reliable sources. Given the absence of these sources to show that the texts are notable outside of their author, the only option we have is to merge what we can and redirect to that section or to the article as a whole. I think what makes it so hard to find sourcing for the books is that they're "just" a collection of Sarkar's speeches. Most of the commentary will be on the speeches and not really about the books specifically as a separate entity from the speeches, if that makes any sense.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, that first book you link to isn't independent anyway, since it was written by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti - Sarkar's alias. bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here The Times of India, an Indian national newspaper, has published an article, attributed to Shrii Shrii Anandamurti and the book we are discussing here, Ananda Vacanamrtam. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that copy & pasting from the book actually makes it notable, and it's obviously not independent coverage if the author is the same person who wrote Ananda Vacanamrtam, but let's play along for a bit: How do you suggest that somebody who died in 1990 wrote a newspaper article in 2011? bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, too. Authors who rise from the dead to re-write primary source material in newspapers is an amazing feat, but it hasn't been worked into the notability guidelines yet. Location (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:After the last evidence I change my vote here.--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're changing from "keep" to "strong keep" without ever providing a reason? bobrayner (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and Tokyogirl. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. Location (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2013 (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.