Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Guide to Human Conduct (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 delete. Based on the policy-derived arguments, this seems to be a fairly clear consensus. No in-depth coverage found, no independent reviews, etc.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide to Human Conduct

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
A Guide to Human Conduct (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)

Self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. Cited in a single footnote in the peer-reviewed literature, no reviews or discussion of the book in the popular or scholarly press. Not listed in the bibliography of Inayatullah's _Understanding Sarkar_. No notability and little likelihood of establishing notability going forward. Recommend delete. GaramondLethe 03:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep:
  • The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
  • Wikipedia:Harassment
  • Wikipedia:Gaming the system
  • And honestly Garamond, if you want to make constructive edits instead of destructive ones, go and tag the articles instead of proposing deletion. Anyone can see that you're systematically proposing to delete all articles related to Sarkar, while you could do something to better them.
  • The previous nominator for deletion, even has withdrawn his nomination as he says that the article is indeed notable. --Universal Life (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If this book is used at multiple schools then it's obviously notable. Given sufficient reliable sources to that effect I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination for deletion. I prefer to use tags on articles where there I believe there is an open question on notability. For most of Sarkar's works this is not, in my opinion, an open question. GaramondLethe 17:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Morality is part of the instruction at all of the many Ananda Marga schools. I have now requested a statement to that effect from the Central Office of AMPS, but there is no telling how long it may take to get that. However, if you will trust my good faith here, this may be confirmed on two websites that I have personally worked on. (1) Here is a 1982 book - I know... primary, COI, yada yada - that describes the system of Ananda Marga education. Note the section on morality. Naturally, in an Ananda Marga school, morality is taught according to the primary text on the subject by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, that is, "A Guide to Human Conduct". (2) Here you will find some teaching aids (a board game and a PowerPoint presentation) for instruction on morality based on the guidelines found in "A Guide to Human Conduct". I might also mention that in Ananda Marga, instruction in meditation is given free of charge, but it is only given after a seeker has understood and accepted the principles of morality. So, in this respect, "A Guide to Human Conduct" has "made a significant contribution to a significant religious movement" (in accordance with Point 3 of WP:NB). Needless to say, my vote would be Keep, but I am hoping that there will be no need for me to vote yet again after only one month on this same book. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this book is part of the curriculum in AM school then you have a difficult-but-doable argument to make that the AM school system in notable and can confer its notability on the books that it requires. That's a stretch, but it could work. Arguing that this book influenced a religious movement based on an attenuated definition of "influence" and in the absence of any independent reliable sources just isn't going to fly. (If the latter argument was going to work it would have prevented any article on a Sarkar book from being deleted. It's my understanding that this clause is used only for works outside of the religious moment that have a significant effect.) GaramondLethe 19:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garamond, your second comment contradicts your first comment, where you said; "If this book is used at multiple schools then it's obviously notable". References are there out, they are just to be searched and added here. And the very reason with which you nominated this article would be completely removed. --Universal Life (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • GL, why would I need to establish that the Ananda Marga system of education is notable? I can easily do that when and if there should be an article on that subject. However, here no such restriction should apply. Ananda Marga schools (primary, secondary, tertiary) are all legally recognized and approved by the countries in which they operate. If you think otherwise, I submit that you should show some evidence for such an odd belief. But, anyway, I am trying to get a certified letter to the effect that I mentioned. Like I said, it could take a while. This is not the highest priority in the AMPS Central Office. While waiting, let me point out one significant defect in your AfD nomination. You claim here - as well as in other AfD nominations - that the book you nominated is self-published. That is false. None of these books are self-published, and they are a long way removed from any type of vanity publishing. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The onus is on you to show that the Ananda Marga school system is significant enough that its curriculum choices can influence notability, and that this book is indeed a part of the curriculum. You're free to argue that this isn't the case, but I don't think you'll persuade too many editor that way. As to the publication, the books are not published by an independent third party. Arguing over what to call that isn't going to advance this discussion. GaramondLethe 14:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor's comment: I am forced to repeat here what I said in innumerable AfD proposed by the same group of censors. 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 wrote on WP. Have we to prefer an encyclopaedia representing the various aspects of human knowledge or have we to continuosly propose all that we don't like/agree for deletion? 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 me if I express here my strong complaint but I don't really even know where to write it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Documentation: This archive contains the scholarly article, "Karma Samnyasa: Sarkar’s Reconceptualization of Indian Asceticism", by Shaman Hatley and Sohail Inayatullah. Note that this article references "A Guide to Human Conduct", which was clearly the basis for the observation in the article (with succeeding amplification) that "Sarkar reinterprets several facets of yama and niyama having a particular relevance to asceticism: brahmacarya, ahimsa (non-violence) and tapas (penance)" (see page 145). --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And references still aren't used to establish notability. Again, my own work is far more heavily cited than Sarkar's in the peer-reviewed literature. That does not make my work notable (in the wikipedia sense), nor should it. GaramondLethe 14:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are four citations in this paper to AGtHC. AGtHC is not discussed anywhere in the paper, only referenced. There is a baseline level of WP:COMPETENCE needed if you're going to contribute here successfully. Part of this is reading and understanding the citations you provide. GaramondLethe 17:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; despite the usual walls of text, there's still no actual evidence that this subject is notable. I don't mean "evidence that people who believe in one sarkar thing also believe in another sarkar thing", I don't mean "evidence that something related to this text is notable", I mean actual evidence that A Guide to Human Conduct passes the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholarly article: While waiting for a statement from the AMPS Central Office regarding the use of this book in relation to the many Ananda Marga schools (Neohumanist Education), here is a scholarly article by Dr. Michael Towsey, in which, among other things, he discusses moral principles with specific reference to the book, "A Guide to Human Conduct". --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independent Hindu blog reproduces the entire book: No doubt a violation of copyright, but still it is of interest that an independent blog promoting Hinduism has reproduced the entire book, "A Guide to Human Conduct", [here. Clearly, this is not a case of "self-publishing"... at least not by the author of the book. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Importance of morality in schools based on "Neohumanist Education system: According to the official website for Neohumanist Education, "Neohumanist Education is practiced in a network of schools and institutes that span over fifty countries with more than 1000 kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools, colleges and children’s homes that have been established over the past 30 years." On the curriculum-values page of that same website, we see the importance given to morality in the Neohumanist Education system. The page begins with a quotation from Sarkar, the founder of this education system, in which he states: "The practice of morality should be the most important subject in the syllabus at all levels." A bit further down on that same page we read: "There are some basic guidelines that are followed in NHE schools to help us in our daily decision making, in classroom management, in choosing Literature, in setting policies, in solving problems, etc." That statement is followed by a list of 10 guidelines/principles that (more or less) correspond to the 10 elements of Yama-Niyama, as presented in Sarkar's book "A Guide to Human Conduct". Hence, the importance of Sarkar's book, "A Guide to Human Conduct", in respect to numerous schools around the world is well established. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To work backwards: Neo-humanism is of course Sarkar's system, and therefore it isn't notable that neo-humanist organizations appeal to his works. A blog is not considered a reliable source, especially when it is published by someone who is manifestly a follower. Finally, Z Net, while looking more promising, gives the appearance of verging on self-publication; their own self-description, and that of others, seems to indicate that their editorial policy is essentially indiscriminate. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This archive contains a signed statement from Cathy Lee, Director of the Sunshine School in Laos. Her statement testifies to the fact that both "A Guide to Human Conduct" and "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" are core material in respect to the training of teachers and the curriculum imparted to the Sunshine School students. Over the coming days, I expect to receive more documents testifying to the same effect. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see on the school website that "The ethos of the School comes from Ananda Marga," which as everyone by now who follows this is aware is the organization centered on Sarkar's principles. Therefore it is unsurprising that they might work from his texts. Again, this is a lack of independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Mangoe. You have just established the notability of A Guide to Human Conduct for us! Ananda Marga has many hundreds of schools around the world. In your own words, "it is unsurprising that [those schools] might work from [Sarkar's] texts". Point 4 at WP:NB reads: "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." In this point, there is no mention that the schools must be entirely unrelated to the author! How many authors would establish an organization that then establishes hundreds of schools just to establish notability for one of the author's books on Wikipedia? --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: my opinion is that the article has sufficient sources.--Anta An (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)— Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 23:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. There are no independent reliable sources discussing this, and none of the subject's defenders have been able to provide anything. We've had various links to the author's own work, and broken links, and a reference to a paper ZCommunications which seems to publish user-submitted content and certainly isn't a scholarly journal. The chief claim advanced for notability is WP:NBOOK #4. To justify this I would require (1) reliable evidence showing Sarkar/Anandamurti's work is used in education ("Notability requires verifiable evidence"); (2) evidence that it is widely used, not just at 1 or 2 institutions, and preferably at institutions which are not closely linked; (3) that the book is "independent" and not written largely for use in educational institutions; (4) that it considered is a "major work in philosophy, literature, science", or another area of knowledge. Lastly the principles in NBOOK are guidelines indicating a work that is likely to have third-party sources, and if there are no 3rd-party sources, we can still delete or merge to the author's page. Wikipedia articles on books should not be simple summaries/descriptions, but must have critical commentary and background information (see WP:SNOWFLAKE for an essay.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would dispute just about everything that Colapeninsula [CP] has stated. (1) I have provided links to two scholarly articles on the subject. Perhaps those articles do not meet CP's rigid standards, but they do tend to dispel the hyperbole of "no independent reliable sources discussing this". (2) Yes, there have been links to the author's own work, but there have also been many links to the statements and websites of others. (3) I am not aware of any "broken links". There is one link that initially comes up with an internal server error (500), but clicking Refresh then brings up the intended page. (4) Criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK is not the "chief claim advanced for notability". An examination of the first AfD nomination reveals that I asserted 3 out 5 of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. That is still my position, and I consider the argument for each of those three criteria to be strong. As I have not yet formally voted in this second AfD debate, I will do so below, appending an amplification of those three arguments. (5) CP asks for "verifiable" evidence that Sarkar's work is used in education. If websites and signed statements do not satisfy CP, then s/he is at liberty to contact either of the persons in those signed statements or anyone available at the contact page on those websites. "Verifiable" only means that CP - or anyone else - has sufficient information to do the verification. It does not mean that CP can sit back and claim that something is not verified simply because CP did not make any effort to do so. Here we are not writing or rewriting the article - we are just discussing notability. (6) CP wants evidence that this book is "widely used" and "not just at 1 or 2 institutions". Again, evidence has been given of use in at least two schools, and two qualifies as "multiple" (more than one), per Criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK. No one is obliged to satisfy the more stringent requirements that CP apparently would impose. (7) CP wants to know that the book was "not written largely for use in educational institutions". Even a cursory glance at the book should prove that for anyone curious about such a matter. (8) CP wants evidence that this book is considered [by whom CP does not say] to be a "'major work in philosophy, literature, science' or another area of knowledge". I am unclear as to why CP insists on this, but according to Criterion 3 of WP:NBOOK, it should be sufficient that this is clearly the view of many knowledgeable members of Ananda Marga worldwide. (9) CP's last argument about what an article should have in it may be valid, but it only suggests a reason to impose a flag on the article, not to delete the article. If we were to delete every article on Wikipedia that is not perfect (according to CP's standards), then the number of articles on Wikipedia might drop from 4,000,000 to 4,000. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As demonstrated by the table below, A Guide to Human Conduct greatly exceeds Wikipedia requirements for notability. Only one out of the five criteria listed at WP:NBOOK must be satisfied. A Guide to Human Conduct satisfies not just one but three of the criteria.
WP:NBOOK Criteria Satisfied by A Guide to Human Conduct
Criterion Compliance References
3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. A Guide to Human Conduct was first published in 1957 by Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha (then barely two years old). As of September 2004, the book was in its seventh reprinting. Ananda Marga encourages everyone to meditate (perform sadhana, spiritual practice). However, in the view of Sarkar (and hence Ananda Marga), the peformance of sadhana is impossible without Yama-Niyama, the yogic code of ethics that is explained in this book. That statement appears at the beginning of each book written by Sarkar. It is found in what is called "The Supreme Command". Similarly, in Sarkar's Introduction to this very book, A Guide to Human Conduct, Sarkar states: "It must, therefore, be emphasized that even before beginning Sádhaná, one must follow moral principles strictly. Those who do not follow these principles should not follow the path of Sádhaná; otherwise they will bring about their own harm and that of others." Hence, in Ananda Marga, instruction in meditation is not dependent on financial contribution but rather upon commitment to the moral code set out authoritatively in this very book (and in no other book by Sarkar). The importance of Yama-Niyama (yogic morality) for spiritual aspirants is stressed not only in this book but also in Ananda Marga Caryacarya Part 1 and Part 2 (2 out of 3 parts of the Ananda Marga social code). However, as stated, this may be verified by simply opening the front cover of any of the many books by Sarkar published by Ananda Marga in many languages and reading "The Supreme Command". For further evidence, examine the source code of Template:Yama-Niyama, which is used in the Ananda Marga article. The source code begins with the following comment: "This infobox template is based on the 10 principles of yogic morality (yama-niyama) as explained by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti in A Guide to Human Conduct.
4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. As evidenced in the preceding discussion, this book is indeed the subject of instruction at multiple schools. It is a fundamental part of the Neohumanist Education system adhered to by all of the many hundreds of Ananda Marga schools around the world. Signed statements by the in-charges of two prestigious schools, one in Laos and the other in London, as well as links to various websites connected with Neohumanist Education [1] [2] [3]. Additional evidence may be provided, but this already meets the criterion for "multiple" schools, and there does not appear to be any dispute on the number of Ananda Marga schools that maintain such a course of study.
5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. This argument was recently advanced by a Wikipedia administrator, J04n in the failed AfD nomination on Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2). Though the book was different, clearly this argument has equal impact in respect to other books. When J04n's assertion was questioned by the AfD nominator on that book as well as this book, I seconded the position of J04n with the following remarks: "I can understand Garamond's doubt as to the historical importance of Sarkar, based purely on what he can find in Western academic circles. However, the life of Sarkar was extraordinary - for example, he underwent seven years in jail on trumped up charges, with more than five years and four months fasting in protest of being poisoned in jail - and during that same time, his organization spread like wildfire around the world. Furthermore, Sarkar's contributions reflect progressive novelty in more areas of individual and collective life than any other historical figure that I am aware of. Philosophy, socioeconomic theory, spiritual practices, music, dance, cosmology, ontology, science, history, ethics, and much, much more - Sarkar covered them all. One need not agree with everything that Sarkar said to appreciate such an achievement. One simply needs to understand that these achievements were not mere dabbling. At the very same time as Sarkar was giving his 5,018 songs of Prabhat Samgiita, he also gave 26 original volumes of books on philology (Shabdha Cayanika) and spent many hours in organizational meetings regarding service work around the world - meetings that took place four times each day (seven days a week). So, yes, I think that Sarkar's works meet criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT, and I am amazed that anyone would concern themselves so much to seek the deletion of such articles. After all, this is a virtual encyclopedia. We are not killing trees or eating up a great amount of any other precious resource by providing accurate and neutral articles on a subject that may be of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Okay, these articles might not accumulate the greatest number of hits on Wikipedia. But so what? Wikipedia still provides a service to the public by making this information available, especially when any of these books are not yet cited in Garamond's "peer-reviewed literature". Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT and WP:IAR are tailor-made for a case like this." I stand firmly by those remarks. In the words of J04n, "The historical significance of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar renders all of his works notable." Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2)
--Abhidevananda (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you thought the plethora of Bengali translations in libraries around the world would establish notability you would have done the search already. You're smart enough not to waste your time searching for something that isn't there. So am I. Garamond Lethet
    c     20:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garamond, as you would know if you had bothered to read the article that you nominated for deletion, I am not talking about "Bengali translations". There have been no Bengali translations. This book was originally written and published in Bengali. In point of fact, English is the translation, and there have been many other translations as well. The article on A Guide to Human Conduct specifically references a Spanish edition, a Brasilian edition, an Italian edition, and a Russian edition. Accordingly, a complete search of libraries for this book requires more than just a cursory use of WorldCat in respect to the English title of the book. It requires a search in all of the languages in which the book has been published as well as in all of the libraries of the world. Your admission that you did not "waste your time" making a search for anything other than the English title demonstrates the bias of your approach and the utter unreliability of your claim that this book "resides in exactly 6 libraries worldwide". --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bengali version in University of Calcutta library: On a concurrent AfD by Garamond here, Garamond provided us with a largely irrelevant undergraduate syllabus from the University of Calcutta, but he seems to have neglected to search the library for the book in question. That book was indeed there. Interestingly, when we search that same University of Calcutta library for "A Guide to Human Conduct", the book does not appear to be there. But when we change the search and look for the Bengali name, it is there, listed as "Jiban-bed" - a Latin-script transliteration of the Bengali name. So, clearly, searches for the Bengali and Hindi names in the libraries of India (for the most part, not cataloged by WorldCat) does indeed make a difference. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My "strong keep" is much clearer after the last interventions. Thanks to all.--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree absolutely with both bobrayner and Mangoe and have also found no cogent argument or reason why this book deserves a separate article when its message could easily be incorporated or summarised in the Ananda Marga article itself, since the AM related institutions seem to be using it most. That, too, says nothing about the notability or importance of the publication. Where else would one expect the book to be promoted most e.g.the Berlitz Corporation previously Berlitz International has for decades promoted its acclaimed language teaching methods by promoting its own books which are used around the world. It is par for the course. And so it is with this work. I have found no evidence whatsoever to convince me that it deserves a page of its own. If Sarkar's admirers here were to have their way, we would end up having more Wiki articles on him and his thoughts than the likes of Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer, Hegel, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Rabindranath Tagore or Bertrand Russel, to mention a few really illustrious figures in the world of philosophy. I note, too, that one supporter here has created a new account just to vote on these Sarkar-related AfD pages. Sockpuppets have their own agenda.--Zananiri (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment This user has done almost no editing except on Ananda Marga and to vote in these deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another editor who has made his/her way to this Afd within 48 hours of account creation. Location (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced of this book's notability. Incorporating key points into Ananda Marga as suggested by Zananiri is fine. Looking for sources with the search terms "a guide to human conflict" sarkar and "a guide to human conflict" anandamurti turns up nothing (but if foreign language sources are presented, they should be considered). That the book is widely used and taught in Ananda Marga circles doesn't say much about notability. Honestly, I don't feel qualified to comment on the significance of Sarkar as an author, but given the above points, I doubt that this book is notable on its own. All I'm looking for is evidence of this book passing the GNG, but it doesn't look like it's there. CtP (t • c) 19:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facepalm at my incorrect searches. My apologies. Redoing the searches (correctly this time, with conduct rather than conflict) I see that the book is noted/referenced in a number of other works, but it still doesn't look like the significant coverage is there. CtP (t • c) 16:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The arguments for keeping are absurd. That it is used by the group in its own schools does not make it notable ; that it is found in a very few libraries does not make it notable either. The article seems to have been written on the assumption that the author is sufficiently famous that all his works would be notable. That just is not the case, except in the view of his own disciples. The eds supporting these articles have apparently not understood the purpose of this encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Ironically, it's Abhidevananda that has convinced me that this book isn't notable. It's clearly important to him and the !keep voters, but as DGG is suggesting, showing that it is extremely important to his followers is not the same thing as establishing notability by our criteria. It looks as though this isn't the only one with similar problems. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Libraries: In case libraries is still an issue for anyone, see here (Open Library) and here (Canadian national library) and here (Australian national library) and here (German national library, titled "Yama & Niyama") and here (Italian national library, titled "Guida alla condotta umana") and here (Hungarian national library, titled "Az élet etikája") and here (Croatian National library, titled "Vodič za ljudsko ponašanje"). If any of the links I just gave don't work, just run a search with the title I provided in parentheses. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So what? These are national libraries, they contain a copy of every book published in their country, even the least notable. It proves nothing about the notability of this book. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on comment: Finally we agree on something, Dougweller. A bunch of libraries is not a big deal. What we should be looking at is WP:NB. And, in that respect, notability is proven by the fact that this book meets not just one but three of the five criteria given there. Okay, maybe you don't agree with the arguments I presented in my table above. But let's look at your implicit position on those three criteria. With respect to Criterion 5, you do not think that Sarkar is sufficiently "historically significant". As I have not seen any authoritative list of persons covered by that criterion, I suppose that here we can only agree to disagree. With respect to Criterion 4, you think that accredited schools that rely on this book for their instruction must be ignored if those schools are associated with the organization that published this book. I don't see that exclusion anywhere in the notability guidelines, nor does such an exclusion strike me as reasonable. But perhaps you may like to have that guideline amended... just for cases where an author is also responsible for the establishment of hundreds of schools. That leaves Criterion 3. You seem to think that it does not matter how significant the contribution of this book is to a significant religious movement if that significant religious movement happens to be Ananda Marga. Perhaps you would like to add a blacklist to Criterion 3... either for books or for religious movements. However, in the absence of such a blacklist, I fail to see any rational basis for your position. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the level of historical significance needed is "so historically significant that a the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." It's only a body of study within the very small number of schools in his own religious group. That doesn't affect his own notability, but it makes him not famous enough as an author to make all his books notable. The most recent religious figures I an think of as having that significance as authors, that of being famous far behind their community, and their works studied by people of all sorts of different traditions, is Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and we don't have all of their works, even all their major works. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I already responded to that remark at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2), referenced for Criterion 5 of WP:NB in my table showing the three criteria met by this book. Criterion 5 does not state that the "author's life and body of written work" must be or even is currently "a common subject of academic study". It merely states that it "would be a common subject of academic study". In this context, "would be" expresses potential, either actualized or not yet actualized. I believe that "would be" makes more sense than "is", because we don't need to wait 50-100 years for academic study to play catch up. Gandhi and MLK? Do I detect a bias for successfully assassinated political activists who preached non-violence? Fortunately, the two known assassination attempts against Sarkar (one in his youth and another while in jail) both failed, thereby enabling him to make many more contributions in areas as diverse as agriculture, health, spiritual practices, philosophy, ethics, music, philology, history, and so on. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC) no such thing as "unsuccessfully assassinated" <grin> --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book's notability cannot be inherited from that of its author. The article may be sourced, but verifiability is distinct from notability. Also, how did you discover AfD in fifteen minutes? CtP (t • c) 23:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris, while I agree with you that the wording of Soroboro's vote is poor, you are definitely incorrect when you say: "The book's notability cannot be inherited from that of its author." Please look at WP:INHERITED, where it is clearly stated: "Three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances." In this case, one of the arguments for notability is: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Perhaps this was the point that Soroboro was making. If so, then I certainly agree with that. However, recognizing the somewhat subjective nature of this argument, I have also asserted Criteria 3 and 4 of WP:NB, both of which I consider to have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake for not examining the wording of WP:INHERITED more carefully; thank you for the corrction. I personally am not of the opinion that Sarkar fulfills point 5 of WP:BK, but yes, this may have been what Soroboro was getting at. CtP (t • c) 04:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion 5 of WP:NB is somewhat subjective in nature, and so I merely state my opinion while respectfully acknowledging your differing opinion. However, Criteria 3 and 4 do not suffer from that drawback. As Sarkar established a global religious movement and also a global political movement, it is rather easy to demonstrate which of his books made a significant contribution to either of those (per Criterion 3). While many of his books do satisfy that criterion, I would not include all of them. For example, I would not include Sarkar's books of children's fiction, his books of short stories, his book on English grammar, of even his many books on philology under that category. But, without a doubt, Sarkar's book on ethics - A Guide to Human Conduct - does fall squarely within the ambit of Criterion 3. Furthermore, as Sarkar also established a global service network, comprising hundreds of accredited schools, it is rather easy to demonstrate which of his books are a subject of instruction in them (per Criterion 4). I have only cited two books in respect to the education network, and the book under discussion here - A Guide to Human Conduct - is one of them. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:57, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Guide_to_Human_Conduct_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137531330"