Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell

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 merge to Neohumanism. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neohumanism in a Nutshell

[edit]
Neohumanism in a Nutshell (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)

Apparently non-notable book. Lots of ghits - people selling it. Seems to lack in-depth coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It plays a particular relevance for the detailed explanation of many concepts related with the neohumanistic theory of the author. I wrote it about half an hour ago and I need to expand and insert new sources on it. Anyway I've now inserted the "under construction" template. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless sources are provided that show why these books are notable as books. Otherwise there is an article on Neohumanism itself, which is the books' author's personal philosophy and the real topic in question. BigJim707 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This book series meets the WP notability criteria on two grounds: (3) The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. (5) The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. Yes, there is an article on Neohumanism. But that article is not a book review. It is of value to readers to gain insight into the vast array of information presented in the numerous books (of compiled discourses by the propounder) that amplify the subject. It is rather surprising to me that someone would nominate an article for deletion within half an hour of its submission. On the other hand, it does not surprise me to see Bob Rayner's name at the top of this AfD, given his history with other related subjects (like PROUT). --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Abhidevananda (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
  • Bob, there is no requirement for independent sources in respect to item (3) at Wikipedia:Notability_(books). What is required are "reliable" sources. And, as someone who frequently gives lectures on the subject of neohumanism and often participates in discussions pertaining to humanistic concerns - easily verified by a google search - I think you may trust my statement that this series of books has been of immense value to all those who want to understand this subject... unless, of course, you choose to question the good faith of my words. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no doubt that people within the Sarkarverse believe that some of Sarkar's voluminous content is important. However, this highlights the neutrality problem whilst contributing nothing to the GNG. I would invite uninvolved editors to have a look at that "academic" source - one bullet point in a very long list in an obscure PDF. bobrayner (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position has nothing to do with "academic sources", Bob. I have cited two grounds on which this series of books meets the WP criteria for notability in respect to books. You have said nothing that would gainsay those two grounds. Rather, you have just conceded that "people within the Sarkarverse believe that some of Sarkar's voluminous content is important", which effectively substantiates the first of the two grounds for notability that I stated. As only one ground is required, this discussion is now moot. The person who placed the AfD on the article on grounds of notability has now accepted notability by WP standards. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop putting words in my mouth. I just pointed out that the nearest thing to serious, substantial independent coverage seems to be one line in a long, indiscriminate list of books. If that were enought o make a topic notable then we'd create an article on every person in the phonebook. bobrayner (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is putting words in your mouth, Bob. Unfortunately, no one is putting words in your ears either. :) The notability of this series of books is substantiated by the two criteria that I mentioned - the two criteria that you choose to ignore - and not the discriminatory notions that you inappropriately seek to impose. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • article creator's comment: I've added in the article academic sources (Bussey -Aug. 2007, p.28), (Bussey -2008, p.106), (Shambushivananda -Sept. 2011, p.51) plus the quotation on the presentation's epigram at the Faculty of Ecology of AMG. About the historical value of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and his huge literary production in the different fields of knowledge there is no doubt. For this reason I believe that any of his written works should be considered notable. In other words at least point 3 and 5 of WP criteria notability are respected.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete I don't the book meets either of the notability criteria proposed above. In the first case I can find no mention at all in reliable sources supporting it making a "significant contribution". In the second case although the author was influential, I read "so historically significant" in the policy as meaning people of the stature of Gandhi, Plato or Shakespeare. Mcewan (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mcewan, pardon me, but your position is extraordinarily subjective, in other words, not at all neutral. Who is it that you consider to be "reliable sources" in respect to the contribution of this series of books to Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha? And what is your scale of measurement in respect to historical significance or your basis for setting a minimum standard? --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I assure you I have no inherent bias on this and am trying to be subjective. However it is my opinion that the sources in the article are not persuasive that the book is itself sufficiently notable to warrant an article. They are relatively minor works that make scant reference to the book which is just one of many they reference. I have done my own research to find sources but that has been unsuccessful. As to the historical significance scale - that's just my reading of the policy. Mcewan (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • article creator's comment: 1) Academic sources are reliable: these are infact normally considered the best for an encyclopedia. I believe, however, that we must refer to some rules, and rules by definition must be clear: Point (3) of WPN seems to me sufficiently clear: "The book has been considered by reliable sources (and we have the academic quotation in the article) to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement" (please note that Sarkar founded some international movements and philosophical theories who have had, and are having, a great impact on the social and cultural side).
2)Historical significance of the author (point 5 at WPN): Giani Zail Singh, seventh president of India, has said about Sarkar: "Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India" (see the academic quotation on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's article incipit).
Mcevan: if you say that the book don't meets either of the notability criteria proposed above you have to demostrate it opposing you references at my academic references. Otherwise your statements are only respectable opinions: that is, in other words, claims that are not supported by the same evidence that supported my statments.
Anyway, to definitely solve the "querelle", I can try to find more quotation and more sources to add in the article. Sorry for my long comment. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes ultimately what I write here is just my opinion. However the burden of proof for notability is on you and I am not at present convinced. But good luck findng better sources - if you do I will be genuinely pleased. Mcewan (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Alas, the DezDeMonaaa account has only ever made two edits - to these two AfDs - and in doing so has a precocious knowledge of enwiki norms & markup, and also makes similar points to the only other editor who has !voted "keep", who in turn appears to have been canvassed. bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Clearly, DezDeMonaaa is a newbie (as indeed am I to a great extent). Accordingly, it seems to me that Bob's remark here is in violation of Wikipedia protocol in general and in specific for AfDs (see WP:BITE). As to Bob's hasty slur about my having been canvassed, that only indicates to me that this person - the person behind this frivolous AfD - needs to take a step back from all matters connected with what he call the "Sarkarverse". His rash accusations and draconian actions are compelling evidence of an unbalanced (non-neutral) POV. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely any closing admin will be competent to see through Abhidevananda's fiction; a newbie whose only edits are two neatly-formatted keep !votes on related AfDs is clearly no newbie at all. bobrayner (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • article creator's comment: To dispel any doubt I've added two more quotations. I hope this is enough... I could go on but common sense tells me that we cannot transform the article in a long list of citations. Anyway the article provide only basic informations and I can add more details. Note for Bob: no canvassing, me and this user are working on the same Sarkar's project. It was a normal comunication as we use in WP--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Neohumanism. Changed Vote. I still don't think these books meet notability criteria, but they may be important in the development of Sarkar's Neohumanism, which has its own article. However that article does not mention the books except as a 'source' (with no inline citations). This does not support the "significant contribution" argument. Neither incidentally does the title "in a Nutshell" which usually implies a post factum summary rather than a contributing work. But rather than fighting this AfD I suggest you should concentrate on integrating the books and their influence into perhaps a new section of the Neohumaism article. Over time that section may naturally become a candidate for a spinoff article. Mcewan (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
McEwan, that makes sense to me... although I would have to do a substantial rewrite of the "NH in a Nutshell" article in order to integrate it into the Neohumanism article. My opinion remains that there is a significant contribution; but it is hard to substantiate, because this series of books amounts to a compilation of articles from various sources over a long span of time. The reason why the books in the series only appear as a 'source' in the Neohumanism article is that I prefer to cite the original source rather than a derivative source, regardless of whether that derivative source led me to identify relevant content. So, while I would prefer to have a separate article for this series - while I still think that it merits that - I could live with a merge compromise. However, with respect to the other AfD levied by Bob Raynor - "Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)"-Discussion for deletion - a merger is simply out of the question. Indeed, that frivolous AfD - and the fact that Bob Raynor has not yet withdrawn it - only reenforces my sense (based on various other factors) that he is not at all acting with neutrality, much less rationality when it comes to matters pertaining to P. R. Sarkar. McEwan, at the risk of being accused of 'canvassing' by Bob, kindly have a look at that other AfD. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abhidevananda, I have looked at that other AfD, and found its subject too complex and (from the edit history of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, too controversial), for me to contribute given the time I have available. Specifically I am worried that a separate article for that book may be a proxy for the doctrinal disagreements manifest in Sarkar's page. So regretfully I do not think I can help with this. But thank you for your positive response to my proposal above. I will continue to watch the related articles and help where I can. Mcewan (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, McEwan... I have no idea what you are talking about or why you think the issue is complex, but okay. I do not see any reason why an article describing the three volumes of Caryacarya - the clearly designated social code of Ananda Marga - would result in controversy or doctrinal disagreements. But, regardless, the question raised is notability, and AFAIK there is no exclusionary rule on account of anticipated controversy. You might just as well argue that an article about the Bible, the Koran, the New Testament, the Old Testament, and so on should be prohibited because of doctrinal disagreements... but that obviously has not happened.--Abhidevananda (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • article creator's comment: the rule of consensus, when based on a constructive, respectful and rational approach it's very useful to reach shared decisions. The last proposal seems to go on this direction. Tanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / merge Unless proponents can add and point out sources of the type required for wp:notability. In-depth coverage by secondary sources. If that occurs, then it should be kept. BTW one of the "references" given is a Wikipedia article. Another has only page numbers, i.e. no info such as the name or author of the reference. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • article creator's comment: Sorry North8000, I've promptly corrected the error: page numbers now refers at the right source. Anyway what I wrote in my last comment is still valid and I agree to merge the article with the neohumanism article.Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, have edited my comment to alter the merge target in line with DGG's comments below. Location (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading DGG's comment below I've replaced Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar with Neohumanism. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 18:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • article creator's comment: as I agree with the decision to merge, at the same time I have to point out the outrageous statements of Bobrayner that have been noticed also by other users. As you can see at the incipit of this page ("Lots of ghits - from people selling it") and as I said here: "Outrageous statements of Bobrayner" and here this user's statments are strongly insulting. As a WP editor I'm trying to do my best here, I give respect and I pretend respect by other users too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as eminently not notable as shown above. Collect (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to neohumanism. although I deplore the extensive creation of articles on the overall topic or Sarkar's theories, there is o advantage in trying to merge everything into one article on the individual. There's an intermediate step, which to group material by subject. Although I recognize a certain inter-relatedness between his work on various topics, and in a sense his philosophy is based on that inter-relatedness, it still helps to consider distinct aspects separately. We should not counter one extreme by another. And I would like to give some acknowledgement to Corenelius383's recognition above that not everything that he wroteshould be the subject for an individual article. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems sensible, per DGG. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 14 January 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/Neohumanism_in_a_Nutshell&oldid=1138120791"