Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROUT in a Nutshell

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 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PROUT in a Nutshell

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

This 26-volume collection of the speeches of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is cited moderately often in the peer-reviewed literature when a quotation from Sarkar is required, but I've not been able to track down any discussion of the collection itself that would establish notability. I should probably add that 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 his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study.

Garamond Lethe 17:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or merge as nominator. I wouldn't object to a redirect to the Sarkar article. Garamond Lethe 17:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) as nom.[reply]

As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion/merge - no need to also "vote".--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a remarkably weak nomination. The nominator effectively admits notability in almost every sentence of his nomination: "cited moderately often in peer-reviewed literature", "player in 20th C. Indian religious movements", "a subject of academic study". That anyone would actually nominate 26 volumes of work for deletion on the basis of so many explicit or implicit admissions of notability only tends to call in question the many other AfDs that have been recently submitted - and amazingly pushed through - all of them connected with Sarkar's books. So I vote Keep... for the very reasons stated in Garamond's AfD nomination. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those points concern the notability of Sarkar. This is not an AfD on Sarkar. It is on "PROUT in a Nutshell", and notability is not inherited. bobrayner (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two points, here, Bob. (1) The first point was not about Sarkar but rather about the series of books under consideration here. (2) All three points were raised by the nominator and not myself. If two of those three points are indeed irrelevant, then the nominator should not have mentioned them. In that case what we come up with is simply the nominator conceding that these 26 volumes are "cited moderately often in the peer-reviewed literature". That admission makes this AfD nomination appear frivolous. 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 your compadres at Fringe/n would or will cast a Delete or Redirect 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 that the nominator's remarks only prove that the nomination should not have been made. Let's not waste our energy putting lipstick on this pig. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in my academic career, a handful of months removed from the end of my postdoc, I have four papers with 50+ citations (two where I'm first author). None of these papers are notable (in the wikipedia sense of that word) because the citations are referencing the ideas in those papers, not discussing the papers themselves. PROUT in a Nutshell has ~25 citations, all of which are referencing the ideas in the book and not discussing the book itself. If you can get the wikipedia notability guidelines changed to take citations into account, great! Until then notability is established by independent, reliable publications discussing the work. Garamond Lethe 14:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, Garamond, but I don't think that sour grapes regarding your four papers is a bona fide justification for an AfD nomination on an article about a series of books (21 volumes, I believe). But, hey, I wish you well in your academic career. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; still short of notability. It's impossible to develop neutral non-fringey content without sufficient coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 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 all 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) 13:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Does not appear to pass our book guidelines, but a redirect makes sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 3 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.