310:: This book is a part of the vast literary heritage of Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and it's one of the various articles related with Sarkar, that I recentely wrote on WP and that have been proposed for deletion by BobRainer. Have we to prefer an encyclopaedia representing the various aspects of human knowledge or have we to continuosly propose for deletion all that we don't like/agree? It's very easy to delete an article but it's more difficoult to build, or constructively help to support/expand/improve it. As a relatively recent editor I ask me: is it more useful to see in WP some experienced editors (strengthened by their advanced procedural knowledge and by a discrete logistical support of a few others) engaged almost exclusively in the easy work of articles' deletion rather than in the more difficoult task of their creation and improvement? I hope you all will understand if I express here my strong complaint but I don't really even know where to write it.--
331:. From the Publisher's Note in the book, it appears that this 58 year old book has made a significant contribution to the Ananda Marga religious movement. Furthermore, this book is historically significant as, again according to the Publisher's Note, it was the "first-published of the more than two hundred books of Shrii Shrii ĆnandamĆŗrti". Regarding the article itself, it seems to be only a stub. But as this stub is barely a couple weeks old, it strikes me as premature to nominate the article for deletion. Let's give the article creator a couple months to develop the article. Certainly no harm is done to Knowledge (XXG) by exercising a little patience and restraint here. --
671:
largely be considered a neutral third party as with many other's who have voiced opinions here (based upon their edit histories). In regards to your
English versus foreign language -- sources are sources no matter where they come from. They can have any language or be from anywhere. Sources are a pillar of wikipedia and frankly the argument that it has few sources because its from
632:
not-so-constructive mind this and (these) article(s) is(are) being tagged for deletion, without giving them a fair time of development. You should not forget that works published in the third world and originally in another language than
English, the reviews about them would also be majorily offline and non-English. We should not fall into this
670:
is poorly sourced makes it a candidate for AfD, and not Ananda Marga
Elementary Philosophy as an AfD keep. I have no bias regarding Sarkar related topics and it's rather strange to suggest that this AfD is marred with a bias problem with out any substantiation. I regularly comment on AfD's and could
601:
that suggest you should not create an article that does not have the appropriate materials ready. Lastly, the fact that the creator overwhelmed their workload and created a bunch of stubs instead of creating one article at a time are not grounds for keep if there are concerns against
Knowledge (XXG)
557:, I really respect the fact that you've made an effort here to go out and find some independent sources in order to improve the article. However, the Deckhart cite you added is a wordpress blog. As such, while it is certainly an independent source, it is not considered to be a reliable one (see
675:
is a bit ludicrous. India is not a third world country (nor does that term even apply anymore) and one of the most populated countries in the world. If this book was notable there would be plenty of reliable sources. Lastly, even if everyone in this AfD worked to improve the article, it's still
631:
really wanted improvement, s/he could tag it with for references etc. But this is not the purpose here. There is a huge amount of prejudice towards the writings of Sarkar, making equations in mind, equating Sarkar's works with no-notability. So, probably out of this prejudice, fix-ideas and
482:
and you can have a table there, with one column for image, one for short notes on it, other than usual data such as title, year of publication, ISBN etc. For a particular book, it will be difficult to find reviews or discussions on it. But, together it may be OK and won't be a candidate for
561:
for the full policy). Compounding the problem, Deckhart doesn't do anything other than classify the chapters in the book. Even if you had found this in a newspaper I don't think such brief mention and coverage would be sufficient to make a successful claim for
168:
417:
provides us with thumb rules for easily identifying books that have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. However, in absence of such coverage we cannot assume that the book meets
Notability guideline for books.
606:. Also, an AfD is not a block from re-creating the article. If the creator does feel they can create a full length article that addresses all concerns, they can attempt to do so the next day after this AfD if they wish.
643:
Moreover, Garamond, I just started with
Deckhart, there are more on the way. Not all sources are online. If you work in cooperation with me, we can literally thrive the WP. I'm an optimist and will always remain so.Ā :)
533:, this recent article, created by a recent WP editor could be easily tagged for better references and notability, but instead six articles are being proposed to be deleted at the same time. How do they expect a
162:
662:
Unfinished houses are a problem on
Knowledge (XXG). The answer to solving that problem is not more unfinished houses. Using that as an argumentative point is not appropriate. We have
94:
89:
349:
If you can locate an independent, reliable source discussing this work's "significant contribution tot he Ananda Marga religious movement" then I would change my !vote to "keep".
121:
98:
676:
likely the article would not meet
Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guideline and still be deleted which is what many people are saying. Editing hours does not supersede notability.
598:
287:
267:
81:
594:
128:
247:
478:: rather than trying to create separate articles for all such books (you won't be able to prove notability for each of them), create one article such as
571:
You also raise some valid concerns about fairness and bias. As those don't relate to this particular discussion I'll respond to them on your talk page.
85:
183:
150:
590:
526:
719:
684:
653:
614:
582:
546:
517:
492:
466:
449:
428:
401:
383:
360:
340:
319:
299:
279:
259:
238:
212:
77:
69:
63:
17:
144:
372:
Notability not established in article, single hit on google scholar does not discuss the book, no independent coverage elsewhere.
140:
328:
200:
479:
190:
738:
40:
426:
156:
649:
577:
542:
378:
355:
336:
462:
513:
505:
315:
663:
226:
734:
419:
36:
537:
to work on six articles in a period of a week. Personally, I find this behaviour to be quite biased. --
458:
645:
572:
554:
538:
488:
445:
373:
350:
234:
176:
525:: There are some independent secondary sources that I found, I'll add them to the site. Moreover,
457:
is getting to be the mantra on the series of Afds on pointless articles started by the same user.
437:
410:
332:
208:
704:
414:
393:
667:
624:
509:
501:
311:
295:
275:
255:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
733:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
636:
and try to demolish instead of constructing an article. If all of the people here voting for
633:
534:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
603:
530:
397:
627:
that for years stays non-sourced, there is no info on notability etc. If the one tagging
558:
717:
682:
612:
484:
441:
413:. The topic lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.
230:
204:
708:
699:
291:
271:
251:
222:
199:
Unable to find any coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Fails
57:
51:
115:
602:
policy. Knowledge (XXG) has numerous working alternatives such as sandboxes and
712:
677:
607:
707:
and most keep claims argue out of inherent notability to the author and
672:
640:
would work together, this article could be a very good one indeed.
589:
Furthermore, there are several essay's that counter the point of
727:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
221:; doesn't seem to be notable. Alternatively, redirect to
111:
107:
103:
599:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't hope the house will build itself
175:
595:
Knowledge (XXG):An unfinished house is a real problem
392:No evidence of notability in independent sourcing.
623:There are so many unfinished houses in WP, such as
189:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
741:). No further edits should be made to this page.
225:or a related article. There is a related AfD at
666:for this reason specifically and the fact that
288:list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions
268:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
8:
700:Ananda Marga#Spiritual and Social Philosophy
286:Note: This debate has been included in the
266:Note: This debate has been included in the
246:Note: This debate has been included in the
52:Ananda Marga#Spiritual and Social Philosophy
711:, and not on the merits of the book alone.
500:: for the reasons above mentioned by me.--
285:
265:
248:list of India-related deletion discussions
245:
480:List of books by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar
327:: In my estimation, this book passes
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
329:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)
201:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)
78:Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy
70:Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy
24:
578:
573:
508:) 13:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)--
379:
374:
356:
351:
1:
720:21:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
685:22:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
654:22:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
615:21:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
583:20:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
547:19:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
518:13:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
493:03:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
474:notability not established.
467:06:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
450:03:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
429:02:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
402:02:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
384:01:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
361:14:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
341:04:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
320:01:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
300:16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
280:16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
260:16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
239:12:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
213:05:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
64:23:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
591:WP:Give an article a chance
758:
436:Not even close to meeting
527:give the article a chance
730:Please do not modify it.
531:assumption of good faith
32:Please do not modify it.
698:Delete or Redirect to
227:Problems of the Day
476:Note to the editor
48:The result was
668:The Cretan Runner
664:other crap exists
529:. Here, I see no
422:Correct Knowledge
302:
282:
262:
749:
732:
715:
680:
610:
580:
575:
424:
381:
376:
358:
353:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
60:
34:
757:
756:
752:
751:
750:
748:
747:
746:
745:
739:deletion review
728:
713:
678:
608:
455:Delete or Merge
420:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
755:
753:
744:
743:
723:
722:
703:Does not meet
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
657:
656:
646:Universal Life
641:
618:
617:
586:
585:
566:
565:
564:
563:
555:Universal Life
539:Universal Life
520:
495:
469:
452:
431:
404:
386:
366:
365:
364:
363:
344:
343:
322:
304:
303:
283:
263:
242:
241:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
754:
742:
740:
736:
731:
725:
724:
721:
718:
716:
710:
706:
702:
701:
696:
695:
686:
683:
681:
674:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
658:
655:
651:
647:
642:
639:
635:
630:
626:
622:
621:
620:
619:
616:
613:
611:
605:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
584:
581:
576:
570:
569:
568:
567:
560:
556:
553:
550:
549:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
496:
494:
490:
486:
481:
477:
473:
470:
468:
464:
460:
456:
453:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
430:
427:
425:
423:
416:
412:
408:
405:
403:
399:
395:
390:
387:
385:
382:
377:
371:
370:Strong delete
368:
367:
362:
359:
354:
348:
347:
346:
345:
342:
338:
334:
333:Abhidevananda
330:
326:
323:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:Editor's note
306:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
281:
277:
273:
269:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
244:
243:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
61:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
729:
726:
709:Ananda Marga
697:
637:
629:this article
628:
551:
522:
510:Cornelius383
502:Cornelius383
497:
475:
471:
454:
433:
421:
406:
388:
369:
324:
312:Cornelius383
307:
223:Ananda Marga
218:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
56:
49:
47:
31:
28:
562:notability.
523:Strong Keep
459:History2007
163:free images
735:talk page
485:GDibyendu
442:Guy Macon
438:WP:SIGCOV
411:WP:SIGCOV
292:ā¢ Gene93k
272:ā¢ Gene93k
252:ā¢ Gene93k
231:bobrayner
50:merge to
37:talk page
737:or in a
705:WP:NBOOK
593:such as
574:Garamond
415:WP:NBOOK
375:Garamond
352:Garamond
205:Location
122:View log
39:or in a
552:Comment
169:WPĀ refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
59:MBisanz
638:delete
604:WP:AfC
535:newbie
483:AFD.--
472:Delete
434:Delete
407:Delete
389:Delete
219:Delete
141:Google
99:delete
673:India
579:Lethe
559:WP:RS
394:Yobol
391:: -->
380:Lethe
357:Lethe
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
714:Mkdw
679:Mkdw
650:talk
634:bias
625:this
609:Mkdw
543:talk
514:talk
506:talk
498:Keep
489:talk
463:talk
446:talk
440:. --
409:per
398:talk
337:talk
325:Keep
316:talk
296:talk
276:talk
256:talk
235:talk
209:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
597:or
191:TWL
120:ā (
652:)
644:--
545:)
516:)
491:)
465:)
448:)
400:)
339:)
318:)
298:)
290:.
278:)
270:.
258:)
250:.
237:)
229:.
211:)
203:.
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
55:.
648:(
541:(
512:(
504:(
487:(
461:(
444:(
396:(
335:(
314:(
294:(
274:(
254:(
233:(
207:(
195:)
187:Ā·
181:Ā·
173:Ā·
166:Ā·
160:Ā·
154:Ā·
148:Ā·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:Ā·
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.