Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pravrajika Vrajaprana
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pravrajika Vrajaprana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable religious figure. Creation of the article is merely yet another example of User:TheMandarin's flagrant violation of WP:Advocacy. — goethean ॐ 13:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the subject is notable for an article. Google books returns about "About 676 results", she had been a co-panelist with Dalai Lama, with several papers presented at conferences, contributor to University Press books. The biography is referenced by secondary sources published University of Notre Dame Press publication and Crown Publishing (and there are several more available on google books). "religious figure" is inaccurate and Vrajaprana is notable as a writer on Vedanta( for which there are "About 676 results" on google books ). Apart from these, bad-faith allegations of " User:TheMandarin's flagrant violation of WP:Advocacy" sounds more like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the efforts of yourself and other Ramakrishna Mission devotees such as User:Devadaru, Wikipedia is one of the most visible sites for the promotion of the Ramakrishna Mission and its authors. Wikipedia has 17 hits for the utterly non-notable Interpreting Ramakrishna, a book, which — apart from the fawning, flattering coverage in Wikipedia — has only been reviewed in Ramakrishna Mission literature by Ramakrishna Mission devotees (two of the hits go to my userpages, which contain a bibliography of every book and scholarly article on Ramakrishna from the last few decades, most of which are not sufficiently notable to have articles devoted to them). On Wikipedia, it appears to be a highly important work, which needs coverage in many, many articles. Your edits clearly violate WP:Advocacy. Please stop using Wikipedia to promote a religious organization. You're right — I don't like it when users abuse Wikipedia for their own private agendas. — goethean ॐ 15:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its easy to see who is abusing "Wikipedia for their own private agendas", Advocacy by adding failed verification, by bad-faith accusations, incivility, name-calling few examples : Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive80#User:Goethean , User_talk:Goethean/2009#Userpage, ANI thread on edit-warring and 3RR violation. Its really a co-incidence that scholars at American Academy of Religion hold a panel discussion on "utterly non-notable Interpreting Ramakrishna"[1][2]. So, on the premises of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and bad faith accusations on other editors, you want to get a notable article referenced by secondary sources deleted. Thank you. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've failed to explain why a book that has never been reviewed outside of Ramakrishna Mission literature gets broad attention on Wikipedia, all of it contributed by yourself. I suggest that it is due to your WP:Advocacy. — goethean ॐ 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think American Academy of Religion[3], Hinduism Today[4] are branches of Ramakrishna Mission? --TheMandarin (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The American Academy of Religion is of course highly notable. But as you undoubtedly know, the above PDF contains nothing which contradicts my claims. — goethean ॐ 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not a mere claim: You can find more info in Prof.Kusumita Pederson's article above. Dr.Pederson was present in the panel discussion. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The American Academy of Religion is of course highly notable. But as you undoubtedly know, the above PDF contains nothing which contradicts my claims. — goethean ॐ 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think American Academy of Religion[3], Hinduism Today[4] are branches of Ramakrishna Mission? --TheMandarin (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've failed to explain why a book that has never been reviewed outside of Ramakrishna Mission literature gets broad attention on Wikipedia, all of it contributed by yourself. I suggest that it is due to your WP:Advocacy. — goethean ॐ 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its easy to see who is abusing "Wikipedia for their own private agendas", Advocacy by adding failed verification, by bad-faith accusations, incivility, name-calling few examples : Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive80#User:Goethean , User_talk:Goethean/2009#Userpage, ANI thread on edit-warring and 3RR violation. Its really a co-incidence that scholars at American Academy of Religion hold a panel discussion on "utterly non-notable Interpreting Ramakrishna"[1][2]. So, on the premises of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and bad faith accusations on other editors, you want to get a notable article referenced by secondary sources deleted. Thank you. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the efforts of yourself and other Ramakrishna Mission devotees such as User:Devadaru, Wikipedia is one of the most visible sites for the promotion of the Ramakrishna Mission and its authors. Wikipedia has 17 hits for the utterly non-notable Interpreting Ramakrishna, a book, which — apart from the fawning, flattering coverage in Wikipedia — has only been reviewed in Ramakrishna Mission literature by Ramakrishna Mission devotees (two of the hits go to my userpages, which contain a bibliography of every book and scholarly article on Ramakrishna from the last few decades, most of which are not sufficiently notable to have articles devoted to them). On Wikipedia, it appears to be a highly important work, which needs coverage in many, many articles. Your edits clearly violate WP:Advocacy. Please stop using Wikipedia to promote a religious organization. You're right — I don't like it when users abuse Wikipedia for their own private agendas. — goethean ॐ 15:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This is an obvious keep for a religious leader. As a person, this individual is notable as a religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument looks like original research. Notabiliy is established by reliable external sources, not by what a person is "as a person". Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My arguments are not OR, please see Devadaru's comments below
as you seem to be ill-informed.Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I might be ill-informed. However, I still can't see what you mean when you say "as a person". I can see your argument that she is notable according to Metawiki criteria. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My arguments are not OR, please see Devadaru's comments below
- Your argument looks like original research. Notabiliy is established by reliable external sources, not by what a person is "as a person". Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's Selected Papers section is highly dubious. It does not contain any published papers. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The section's title should be corrected as Presented Papers, I thought it would be helpful to add papers presented at notable conferences like AAR.--TheMandarin (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had no idea it was Wikipedia practice to list presented unpublished papers. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its sufficient to restrict to published presented papers. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. And I argue that even the fact that a published paper was presented somewhere is nonnotable and irrelevant, unless, of course, this is mentioned in the title of the paper. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I gracefully disagree with you — not every published paper can be considered "nonnotable and irrelevant", for ex, when the publications are being cited by academics for ex here:http://www.jstor.org/pss/3270585 and also used as text books in universities like Emory University here. These things apart there are sources that cite her for the research on Christopher Isherwood, for ex in books like Mr.Isherwood changes trains by Victor Marsh. (BTW, there is no section on Presented papers now, which I think is unnecessary, But a section on publications is very helpful). --TheMandarin (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems we have a terminology issue here, and I might be at fault. I thought that a presented paper meant a paper that was given as a talk at a conference or the like. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment I fail to see where my argument was unclear, but let me re-phrase: (1) A paper that is unpublished and was presented (as a lecture) is per definition nonnotable (because it is unpublished); (2) A paper that is published could (obviously!) be notable, but the fact that it was also presented (as a lecture) is per se irrelevant, and is not per se an argument for its notability. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with you and I am not trying to establish notability on paper presentations alone, and my point is there are enough secondary sources to establish notability. Along with secondary sources, she is cited in academic circles as indicated above, for ex: such as "Newsletter of the INSTITUT FÜR DIE WISSENSCHAFTEN VOM MENSCHEN, Vienna and of the INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN SCIENCES at Boston University"[5]. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, the article in the newsletter is not a good argument for your views. It would appear to be reprinted from a confessional publication, the author is a journalist with a confessional commitment, and the references concern the value or meditation &c. The article's context is more confessional than academic. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above link was just a example. A more relevant example academic citation would be International Journal of Yoga Therapy[6]. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, the article in the newsletter is not a good argument for your views. It would appear to be reprinted from a confessional publication, the author is a journalist with a confessional commitment, and the references concern the value or meditation &c. The article's context is more confessional than academic. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with you and I am not trying to establish notability on paper presentations alone, and my point is there are enough secondary sources to establish notability. Along with secondary sources, she is cited in academic circles as indicated above, for ex: such as "Newsletter of the INSTITUT FÜR DIE WISSENSCHAFTEN VOM MENSCHEN, Vienna and of the INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN SCIENCES at Boston University"[5]. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment I fail to see where my argument was unclear, but let me re-phrase: (1) A paper that is unpublished and was presented (as a lecture) is per definition nonnotable (because it is unpublished); (2) A paper that is published could (obviously!) be notable, but the fact that it was also presented (as a lecture) is per se irrelevant, and is not per se an argument for its notability. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems we have a terminology issue here, and I might be at fault. I thought that a presented paper meant a paper that was given as a talk at a conference or the like. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I gracefully disagree with you — not every published paper can be considered "nonnotable and irrelevant", for ex, when the publications are being cited by academics for ex here:http://www.jstor.org/pss/3270585 and also used as text books in universities like Emory University here. These things apart there are sources that cite her for the research on Christopher Isherwood, for ex in books like Mr.Isherwood changes trains by Victor Marsh. (BTW, there is no section on Presented papers now, which I think is unnecessary, But a section on publications is very helpful). --TheMandarin (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. And I argue that even the fact that a published paper was presented somewhere is nonnotable and irrelevant, unless, of course, this is mentioned in the title of the paper. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its sufficient to restrict to published presented papers. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had no idea it was Wikipedia practice to list presented unpublished papers. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The section's title should be corrected as Presented Papers, I thought it would be helpful to add papers presented at notable conferences like AAR.--TheMandarin (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject has written or edited some notable books. Google Scholar returns sixty results. Her books have been used as text books, for instance here and here. The article is well-referenced. Devadaru (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Ramakrishna Mission devotee is heard from. Thanks for your help. — goethean ॐ 16:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal vendetta against editors that you stereotype as "Ramakrishna Mission devotees" is getting rather ridiculous. Please take this personal issue of yours elsewhere - there are many talk pages where you can vent your theories. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Steroeotype? Both User:Devadaru and User:TheMandarin have presented themselves as Ramakrishna Mission devotees (and presumably can defend themselves without the help of your personal attacks). User:Devadaru is so committed to promoting Tyagananda and Vrajaprana's new book that he personally sent me a free copy so that I could see for myself what a wonderful wonderful book it is. All I'm doing is pointing out that their edits flagrantly violate WP:Advocacy. — goethean ॐ 21:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you trying to delete an entry on a notable religious leader/author? As far as this Afd is concerned - you have gone to far. This is a notable subject - and I still insist that you take your issues elsewhere. This is a notable individual. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominating an article for deletion is "going too far"? What are you talking about? — goethean ॐ 21:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal issues regarding other editors is no reason to nominate an article for AFD. Again, you need to take your personal issues with other editors to talk pages. Trying to delete articles, because you have issues with other editors, is not constructive - especially when the article is about a notable individual. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated this article for deletion because the subject is not notable. You are right --- User:TheMandarin's continued flagrant violation of WP:Advocacy should be dealt with elsewhere. — goethean ॐ 23:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, please take you personal fights against other editors to the proper discussion pages. This article is clearly notable, sourced, etc... You need to take your personal issues elsewhere - as there are appropriate discussion boards for such issues that you have. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The user goethean nominated the article for deletion on the grounds that it is (according to him) nonnotable. He has every right do so, because the purpose is to debate the question according to Metawiki procedures. It is unfair and unconstructive to criticize him for nominating the article. Let us instead please discuss the subject matter. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While User:Goethean has every right to nominate the article for deletion, his personal attacks, bad faith allegaions are clearly unjustified. Goethean can take his personal issues to appropriate noticeboard or even WP:ARBCOM, where they look into content disputes, incivility etc., from the past few years. Attacking the editors instead of the content is just Ad Hominem and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The user goethean nominated the article for deletion on the grounds that it is (according to him) nonnotable. He has every right do so, because the purpose is to debate the question according to Metawiki procedures. It is unfair and unconstructive to criticize him for nominating the article. Let us instead please discuss the subject matter. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, please take you personal fights against other editors to the proper discussion pages. This article is clearly notable, sourced, etc... You need to take your personal issues elsewhere - as there are appropriate discussion boards for such issues that you have. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated this article for deletion because the subject is not notable. You are right --- User:TheMandarin's continued flagrant violation of WP:Advocacy should be dealt with elsewhere. — goethean ॐ 23:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal issues regarding other editors is no reason to nominate an article for AFD. Again, you need to take your personal issues with other editors to talk pages. Trying to delete articles, because you have issues with other editors, is not constructive - especially when the article is about a notable individual. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominating an article for deletion is "going too far"? What are you talking about? — goethean ॐ 21:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you trying to delete an entry on a notable religious leader/author? As far as this Afd is concerned - you have gone to far. This is a notable subject - and I still insist that you take your issues elsewhere. This is a notable individual. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Steroeotype? Both User:Devadaru and User:TheMandarin have presented themselves as Ramakrishna Mission devotees (and presumably can defend themselves without the help of your personal attacks). User:Devadaru is so committed to promoting Tyagananda and Vrajaprana's new book that he personally sent me a free copy so that I could see for myself what a wonderful wonderful book it is. All I'm doing is pointing out that their edits flagrantly violate WP:Advocacy. — goethean ॐ 21:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal vendetta against editors that you stereotype as "Ramakrishna Mission devotees" is getting rather ridiculous. Please take this personal issue of yours elsewhere - there are many talk pages where you can vent your theories. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Ramakrishna Mission devotee is heard from. Thanks for your help. — goethean ॐ 16:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The first three of the four results in a Google news search seem notable. All require payment to read the articles, so I can't see but the summaries.
- San Jose Mercury News : DALAI LAMA PROMOTES HARMONY
- $2.95 - San Jose Mercury News - NewsBank - Apr 16, 2006
- This is the attitude we should strive for, said Pravrajika Vrajaprana, a nun with the Vedanta :Society of Southern California. They are not a Hindu, ...
She is quoted by a major newspaper which considers her an authority on this subject. Dream Focus 04:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided, leaning towards keep I am beginning to think that her publications are notable enough. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2011 (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.