396:: 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.
492:: Sorry for not giving this AfD nomination. I've been coping with a lot of non-WP work in addition to the onslaught of AfDs on Sarkar-related articles (I believe there are 9 concurrent AfDs from this nominator alone). Regarding the nominator's claim that there is no academic coverage, that is not correct. Academic coverage is even cited in the article itself (vide Kang: Sarkar and the Buddha's Four Noble Truths). As may be seen
579:
comprehensive encyclopedia such as ours? But this is excessive detail, and does not warrant a separate article. My advice to the supporters of the articles on him is tat they themselves try to combine articles and remove the least important. A few stronger articles is always better. GTrying to get too many gives the impression of promotionalism.
401:
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
200:
As always: while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such
196:
Another 25 volumes from the prolific Sarkar. The single independent source cited is a self-published ebook that mentions the collection only in passing. No academic coverage, no popular reviews, and no notability. I wouldn't object to a redirect to the Sarkar bibliography article, but I think the
376:
would or will cast a Delete or
Redirect vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Knowledge (XXG) 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 redirect. There's no need to
578:
For this to be notable, this collection of his essays as such would need being notable, not merely the content which he expresses there and elsewhere. I have been from the first a supporter of full coverage of fringe subjects, for where else can people expect to find reliable information but a
402:
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.
405:
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...
165:
496:, this serious academic article also appears in the journal "Philosophy East & West" Volume 61 Number 2 April 2011 303-323, published by the University of Hawaii Press. There is a much larger document by Kang -
474:
Discussion so far have been pleads with the community (copy & pasted across multiple AfDs) that are not AfD discussion regarding the article or policies. Re-listed for direct AfD discussion.
297:
118:
557:; there may be a handful of tenuous google hits, and some coverage from other points within the Sarkarverse, but without indepth discussion by independent sources, it fails our
321:
273:
598:. 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.
159:
345:
500:- that I will try to secure a copy of by writing to him. In all likelihood, this doctoral thesis will have more references to the Subhasita Samgraha series. --
125:
493:
91:
86:
95:
78:
17:
536:: Garamond your atempt to delete all articles related with Shrii P. R. Sarkar continues also when academic coverage is evident.--
372:... but why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's compadres at
180:
147:
377:
dedicate much energy putting lipstick on this pig. Hence, I offer a proforma response to
Garamond's proforma nomination. --
626:
40:
141:
607:
590:
570:
545:
509:
482:
462:
434:
415:
386:
361:
337:
313:
289:
261:
243:
212:
60:
524:
256:
207:
137:
82:
505:
382:
349:
325:
301:
277:
231:
541:
430:
411:
187:
622:
74:
66:
36:
566:
519:
251:
202:
173:
444:
603:
501:
378:
153:
537:
426:
407:
373:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
621:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
558:
562:
480:
460:
599:
586:
54:
112:
497:
230:
As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion - no need to also "vote". ★☆
447:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
475:
455:
581:
201:
his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study.
615:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
394:
Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.
108:
104:
100:
172:
518:Citations (still) don't count towards notability.
454:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
186:
298:list of Spirituality -related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
629:). No further edits should be made to this page.
274:list of Literature -related deletion discussions
322:list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions
8:
344:Note: This debate has been included in the
320:Note: This debate has been included in the
296:Note: This debate has been included in the
272:Note: This debate has been included in the
346:list of India-related deletion discussions
343:
319:
295:
271:
250:My bad – thanks for pointing that out.
197:best solution here is a simple delete.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
525:
520:
257:
252:
208:
203:
1:
608:16:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
591:03:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
571:00:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
61:00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
546:19:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
510:12:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
483:02:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
463:02:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
435:17:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
416:17:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
387:07:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
362:02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
338:02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
314:02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
290:02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
262:14:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
244:21:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
213:20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
646:
425:: for the reasons above.--
618:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
559:notability guideline
75:Subhasita Samgraha
67:Subhasita Samgraha
48:The result was
465:
364:
340:
316:
292:
264:
246:
637:
620:
527:
522:
478:
458:
453:
449:
358:
355:
352:
334:
331:
328:
310:
307:
304:
286:
283:
280:
259:
254:
249:
240:
237:
234:
229:
210:
205:
191:
190:
176:
128:
116:
98:
57:
34:
645:
644:
640:
639:
638:
636:
635:
634:
633:
627:deletion review
616:
476:
456:
442:
356:
353:
350:
332:
329:
326:
308:
305:
302:
284:
281:
278:
238:
235:
232:
133:
124:
89:
73:
70:
55:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
643:
641:
632:
631:
611:
610:
593:
573:
551:
550:
549:
548:
534:*Editor's note
530:
529:
513:
512:
498:his PhD thesis
486:
485:
468:
467:
466:
451:
450:
439:
438:
437:
419:
418:
403:
398:
397:
390:
389:
366:
365:
341:
317:
293:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
194:
193:
130:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
642:
630:
628:
624:
619:
613:
612:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
592:
588:
584:
583:
577:
574:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
553:
552:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
531:
528:
523:
517:
516:
515:
514:
511:
507:
503:
502:Abhidevananda
499:
495:
491:
490:Documentation
488:
487:
484:
481:
479:
473:
470:
469:
464:
461:
459:
452:
448:
446:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
421:
420:
417:
413:
409:
404:
400:
399:
395:
392:
391:
388:
384:
380:
379:Abhidevananda
375:
371:
368:
367:
363:
359:
347:
342:
339:
335:
323:
318:
315:
311:
299:
294:
291:
287:
275:
270:
263:
260:
255:
248:
247:
245:
241:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
221:
215:
214:
211:
206:
198:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
127:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
617:
614:
595:
580:
575:
554:
538:Cornelius383
533:
489:
471:
443:
427:Cornelius383
422:
408:Cornelius383
393:
369:
357:PEANUTBUTTER
333:PEANUTBUTTER
309:PEANUTBUTTER
285:PEANUTBUTTER
239:PEANUTBUTTER
219:
217:
216:
199:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
121:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
160:free images
623:talk page
563:bobrayner
406:Thanks.--
37:talk page
625:or in a
600:Location
521:Garamond
445:Relisted
374:Fringe/n
253:Garamond
204:Garamond
119:View log
39:or in a
472:Comment
222:as nom.
166:WP refs
154:scholar
92:protect
87:history
56:MBisanz
596:Delete
576:Delete
555:Delete
220:Delete
138:Google
96:delete
50:delete
587:talk
526:Lethe
348:. ★☆
324:. ★☆
300:. ★☆
276:. ★☆
258:Lethe
209:Lethe
181:JSTOR
142:books
126:Stats
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
604:talk
567:talk
542:talk
506:talk
494:here
477:Mkdw
457:Mkdw
431:talk
423:Keep
412:talk
383:talk
370:Keep
351:DUCK
327:DUCK
303:DUCK
279:DUCK
233:DUCK
174:FENS
148:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
582:DGG
360:☆★
336:☆★
312:☆★
288:☆★
242:☆★
188:TWL
117:– (
606:)
589:)
569:)
561:.
544:)
508:)
433:)
414:)
385:)
354:IS
330:IS
306:IS
282:IS
236:IS
168:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
52:.
602:(
585:(
565:(
540:(
504:(
429:(
410:(
381:(
218:*
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
122:·
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.