Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy

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 merge to Ananda Marga#Spiritual and Social Philosophy. MBisanz ^talk 23:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy

Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Unable to find any coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Fails

• Delete; doesn't seem to be notable. Alternatively, redirect to Ananda Marga or a related article. There is a related AfD at Problems of the Day. bobrayner (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Editor's note: 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.--Cornelius383 (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In my estimation, this book passes
  Abhidevananda (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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". GaramondLethe 14:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Notability not established in article, single hit on google scholar does not discuss the book, no independent coverage elsewhere. GaramondLethe 01:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete> No evidence of notability in independent sourcing. Yobol (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  ^«৳alk» 02:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not even close to meeting
  WP:SIGCOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or Merge is getting to be the mantra on the series of Afds on pointless articles started by the same user. History2007 (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability not established. Note to the editor: 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 List of books by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar 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 AFD.--GDibyendu (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: for the reasons above mentioned by me.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: There are some independent secondary sources that I found, I'll add them to the site. Moreover,
  newbie to work on six articles in a period of a week. Personally, I find this behaviour to be quite biased. --Universal Life (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment
    WP:RS
    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 notability.

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.GaramondLethe 20:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Furthermore, there are several essay's that counter the point of
  WP:AfC. 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. Mkdw^talk 21:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There are so many unfinished houses in WP, such as
  bias
  and try to demolish instead of constructing an article. If all of the people here voting for delete would work together, this article could be a very good one indeed.
• 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. :) --Universal Life (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfinished houses are a problem on Wikipedia. The answer to solving that problem is not more unfinished houses. Using that as an argumentative point is not appropriate. We have
  The Cretan Runner 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 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 India 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 likely the article would not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline and still be deleted which is what many people are saying. Editing hours does not supersede notability. Mkdw^talk 22:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete or Redirect to
  WP:NBOOK and most keep claims argue out of inherent notability to the author and Ananda Marga, and not on the merits of the book alone. Mkdw^talk 21:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]