Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kimchi.sg (talk | contribs)
22,857 edits
m remove heading
→28 November 2006: Deletion endorsed by User:Kimchi.sg
Line 11: Line 11:
===28 November 2006===
===28 November 2006===
<!--
<!--
New entry right below here. Add a new entry by typing:
New entry right below here. Add a new entry by typing: Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
Overturn Deletion: The article on Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet deserves to be re-instated. Aside from the article NOT suffering, in my view, from either Vanity or NPOV, neither is considered a strong reason for deletion. Others have provided evidence that Ms. Norelli-Bachelet DOES have objectively verifiable credentials. In addition to those already mentioned, her article ‘Cosmology in the Rig Veda’ was published in The Hindu, July 9, 2002 http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/07/09/stories/2002070900110200.htm. Her article ‘In Defence of the Ancient Culture’ was published in The Hindu, November 7, 2000 http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000/11/07/13hdline.htm.
I would like to know what, exactly, in the WIKI article was considered either “unverifiable”, or “original research”?
Comments: The controversy and passions created by a particular author's works should not be criteria for whether a description OF that work appears on the WIKI pages. If the REACTIONS to a particular person's work/creations become the standard by which NPOV status is determined, then, in his day, even the work of someone as important as Gallileo would not have been mentioned in WIKI! Would the fact that the Church Fathers, the very 'powers that be' at the time, found him to be a heretic, have rendered discussion of him ‘inappropriate’ (i.e. WP:BIO) for inclusion in WIKI? One must not confuse the ACCEPTANCE, UNDERSTANDING, or even TOLERANCE of someone's works with the objective acknowledgement of that work's place in the vast scheme of things.
Wiki editors and administrators should allow an objective, NPOV, Wikipedia page for Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet -- the author-in-question. From what I have read on this page (and the links provided) regarding her published works, she has a significant involvement in Indian affairs, discussions regarding the Vedas, and a strong impact on the Integral Yoga community (whether one considers it “positive” or “negative”). Jan Shapiro




Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
-->
-->

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | [[Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet]] – deletion endorsed – 01:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet| — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination)|AfD]])|}}

I have speciefied my reasons [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sandstein&diff=next&oldid=90677376 here] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sandstein]) During the AFD, the authors of the article were AFAIK not notified, and the article was deleted based on an uncritical reading of WP:BIO. Notablity for astrologers or religious leaders like PNB is not easy to establish. WP:BIO says even in the introduction: "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)." "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." PNB is clearly a published author, and her notability must be judged by comparing her to other astrologers or religious leaders, where I think she is notable, on grounds of her published books and writings, and her role as a religious leader. [[A. G. E. Blake]] for example in The Intelligent Enneagram says: "An important and useful text, which makes reference to the enneagram in this context, is The Gnostic Circle, by Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet." She was also criticized by authors unrelated to her or to her group like Rajaram: [http://www.hvk.org/articles/1002/223.html] And Jenkins has also written about her: The author Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet, and her book The Gnostic Circle (published in 1978) has also been a keystone piece of information which allowed Jenkins to futher confirm aspects of the galactic center as written into ancient Vedic philosophies. Jenkins states that The Gnostic Circle is "a deep, intuitive, and complex work." The book, according to Jenkins, contains an almost matter-of-fact description of the evolutionary implications of our periodic alignments with the Galactic Center.[http://www.earthportals.com/Portal_Messenger/alignment2012.html] There are probably many other references to her or to her followers, including criticisms by Aurobindo groups. (And I'm not at all an expert on Patricia or even on Astrology, but have still heard about her.) Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. The deletion of this article was incidentally even noteworthy enough to be mentioned on [http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Patrizia_Norelli-Bachelet.html kheper.net]. --[[User:Mallarme|Mallarme]] 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [[User:Mallarme|Mallarme]] 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': notifying the creator of an article of an AfD is common courtesy, but not doing so does not invalidate the AfD. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I fixed the AfD link above to the actual one, which also links to various other related AfD's. I don't see anything above that would convince me to change my call, but I abstain since I closed it. (Yay! First contested AfD closure!) ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted). I can find no process problems with the deletion discussion. The core problem with the article was the lack of independent, reliable sources on which to base the article or to demonstrate notability. None of the new sources cited above reliably address that concern. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 23:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' I see no evidence of abuse of discretion by the closer. None of the new sources mentioned above appear at first glance to be sources that are both [[WP:INDY|independent]] and [[WP:RS|reliable]]. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' AFD and closure was within policy. '''[[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]]''' 07:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn deletion''' I believe I created the Patizia Norelli-Bachelet page, or at least I added much of its content. I was not alerted to its fate (or to the fate of the other articles I created related to her yoga, books, community), and therefore was not allowed any time to present more facts, links that would justify the PNB page and the ones related to it. I think everybody jumped the gun on this one. Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet should be counted as a notable figure and author whether one regards her work/claims highly or not. How many people have claimed to be the third element of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's Supramental Descent/Yoga? None, other than her. This claim, by itself makes at least a bio page for her justified. How many other disciples/writers on the subject of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, such as Satprem, are allowed wiki pages about themselves and their organizations. Many. None of that is considered 'vanity spaming'. Norelli-Bachelets's work on the Matrimandir is also truely noteworthy and is historically relevant, even if it is not the majority opinion ( http://matacom.com/chr1/ChronicleOne_1.html). Hasn't it been the case a few times in human history, where majority opinion does not necessariy represent the full truth of a situation? I hope other neutral editors can review the many knee jerk reactions to the PNB related content and explore more facts about Ms. Norelli-Bachelet's actual relevance in world-affairs. Here is a review of one of her books by a Kashmiri Pundit, Dalip Langoo: http://www.milchar.com/Apr2004/14.html - sablerlotus (3 Dec 2006)
**So, wait, now, someone's CLAIMS alone make them notable? Also, not notifying the author does not invalidate the AfD, since ANYONE should be able to find the information. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 21:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
** '''I will add this:''' When I created the PNB pages (based on my own study of her work), I used other wiki pages as models, I made links that I knew of, that were connected to the topic of the pages, hoping others would add to the pages over some period of time, as they found the pages. I assumed that most people create pages/content based on their area of study or expertise, who else would start wiki pages other than those very familiar with the subject matter, and my subject matter, has been Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet, Sri Aurobindo, etc. I thought creating new content was an acceptable practice that was useful to readers interested in the subject of the page. I did not realize that this was known as "Vanity Spamming". I noticed a page about the Integral Yoga group [[Auroconf]] (an group which is critical of PNB). I thought, that the PNB-friendly Integral Yoga group, Aeon Group, should have a page as well. So I created it. I also saw that many books, fiction and non-fiction included, have pages on wiki, so I thought that the books The Gnostic Circle, The New Way, Vol 1&2, and The New Way Vol 3, and The Magical Carousel (all recorded in the Library of Congress and one of which is translated into different languages [http://www.sokrates-digital.de/php_skripte/detailseite.php?ID=AQ+219205&PHPSESSID=f0a5b0c08d0904e976fe5726df41d17d%20:]) all would be accepted as pages. I saw that rubrics such as [[Spiral dynamics]] (also a book) had pages so I decided to create one for the rubric 'The New Way'. I did not create these wiki pages as the loathesome mass spam attack that some want to portray. I did it because these books, and ideas exist and are read by people all over the world. If I had been alerted as to my editing errors sooner, I think this whole discussion would have been avoided, because I could have removed the multiple links and let the pages grow. As far as there being no other editors to some of the pages other than me, HOW LONG WERE THOSE PARTICULAR PAGES ALLOWED TO EXIST? Most of them of them didn't last more than a couple of weeks. That was not enough time for multiple editors to contribute the needed additional content, which would have happened in the course of time. I do apologize that, as an inexperience user, that I did not avoid the multiple linking. I am certainly learning about what is acceptable as a contributor and what is not now. BUT my errors, an apparently grievous mistake, should not prevent editors to OVERTURN the mass deletion of this page and the other pages, such as the pages regarding her books, some of which were published by presses at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram, and allow the pages to be rebuilt by the wiki community in a Neutral, NPOV fashion. There are objective cases that Norelli-Bachelet is a substantial author that other's draw on. One example: In January 1991, excerpts and diagrams from Norelli-Bachelet's 'The New Way, Volume 1 &2' where presented in a thesis by Auroville Architect, Mona Doctor in 'Auroville Today', Issue #25. Another example is from the 'Ancient Suns' website which draws of PNB's book 'The Hidden Manna': [http://www.theancientsuns.com/MayanCalendar.html]. '''Amarkov and other editors/administrators that have so far supported deletion''', what do you think about the matter raised by Patricia R Heidt below, about PNB's collected work being kept in the Sri Aurobindo Archives? That does not seem to be dismissable as a 'claim', this seems to be a verifiable fact/reality, and evidence enough that she is a significant author ... significant enough for the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives to dedicate a collection in her name. Please forgive the error I made as an novice wiki user and allow the page to either be re-published, or allow it to be recreated by the wiki community - saberlotus 5 December 2006

OVERTURN DELETION:
Ms. Norelli-Bachelet is a substantial author on the relationship between the mystical doctrine of the Vedas and the Integral/Supramental yoga. Her teachings regarding the use of the Tropical Zodiac as the demarcation for the celebration of annual festivals has recently been recognized by Pundits in South India. Mr. Sai Srinivasan, Administration Dept., Gov of Tamil Nadu (Ex Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments) gives permission to reproduce a recent email to her: 'Dear Madam, I am happy to announce that the transit of Jupiter at 10.13 AM IST on 24.11.06 has been celebrated in 5 temples in traditional manner... It is a milestone in the history of Hindu temples because the correct date and time had been adopted to celebrate this cosmic event as per your directions... We have decided to extend this celebration of Jupiter transit to more temples in the future... (http://group.hgroup.yahoo.com/group/movmentfortherestorationofvedicwisdom/message/12).
In addition to Mr. Srinivasan's nontrivial third party account of her significance, there are letters on file at Aeon Centre of Cosmology which show that Ms. Norelli-Bachelet has been close to some of the Trustees of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Many of her books were printed at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram press. Her books and collection of articles are in their Archives for all to puruse as well. To claim that nobody in the Ashram takes her seriously (as has Wiki editor Alan Kazlev in his assessment of her) is false.
I am a student of Ms. Norelli-Bachelet; however please be neutral and realize that this does not make any of these statements false. All are verifiable. I consider her yogic research to be entirely consistent with what is permissible in such areas as philosophy, philology and/or comparative religions, for example -- and not a field for personal promotion.
Patricia R Heidt PhD
5 DECEMBER 2006

**Well, based on the fact that I see no grounds for your claims, yes, the fact that you admit to have a conflict of interest kinda makes me doubt it more. [[WP:COI]] articles rarely avoid deletion, but even more rarely is their overturning in deletion review. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 15:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Overturn deletion''' 'I am a follower of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother and in 1988 I found the book "The New Way 1&2 ". At that time I was contributing money to the Matrimandir (The Mother's Temple built in Auroville) because of my love for The Mother and Her Vision. The book opened my eyes to the changes made to the Mother's original blueprint plans while building the Matrimandir. From the plain and seemingly verifiable facts which were given in the book I had to consider that the devotees of The Mother were mislead by the builders. It then occured to me that I had given money not to The Mother's sacred plan but to the egos of the builders. Which made me sad. In my opinion, still many devotees are mislead by the builders and I hope that all who reasearch the subject on Wikipedia will at least learn of the changes of the Matrimandir discribed in the book "The New Way 1&2" or by information of the Matrimandir Action Committee on the internet (www.matacom.com). But it seems that this information is considered 'vanity spam' by many of you 'Neutral' editors. It is unjust for 'Neutral' editors to blindly uphold the false assumption that all devotees of The Mother and Sri Aurobindo react to PNB negatively and judge that she is a 'minor teacher'. It is otherwise. In my experience, all people who learn about her books are happy to get the right information instead of the false information the Matrimandir builders spread out to get money for the construction. None of the critics of "The New Way 1&2" or "The Chronicles of the Inner Chamber" has been able to prove any factual error in Ms. Norelli Bachelet's research into the matter. They just criticise her, but don't seem to be able to refute the facts that she brings reader's to consider. Hanneke, Creil, The Netherlands
**Once again, [[WP:COI]] votes based on vague [[WP:MYRELIGIONOWNS]] criteria are entirely unpersuasive. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Overturn deletion''' Considering that her work is a recognized influence in the highest ranks of temple administration in India, this author must be considered notable. She is the only Cosmologist who has formulated an Indocentric Cosmology, and her publications on Vedic Wisdom are having a very real impact on contemporary India since they have led to an adjustment of the timings for celebrations in Hindu temples. Hence non-notability does not apply. The page should be reinstated, and the relevant information should be added to the page. --[[User:Tammobuss|Tammobuss]] 10:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Overturn deletion''' I’m student of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet. I like you to overturn the deletion for reasons you mention as why her Wiki is not set according Wiki rules. I present you a few of the many links that proof she is appreciated by different sources. I got links of websites, magazines and papers. They put her work on their site or review them. As in the papers it potentially reach an audience of millions of people. As you look more deeply and accurate it is not about Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet but her writings and knowledge in there they preview. So in this light how can someone out there judge her work and the knowledge without the proper understanding of the matter, render unimportant and ready for deletion? (Fred van Manen, Arnhem, The Netherlands, 6 December 2006)

http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/vedicculture.htm
http://www.indiastar.com/norelli-bachelet.html
http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Patrizia_Norelli-Bachelet.html
http://www.amazon.com/magical-carousel-zodiacal-odyssey/dp/B0006E2RQU
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/8/prweb272955.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/aeon-center-for-cosmology
http://www.hinduonnet.com/br/2004/01/20/stories/2004012000471700.htm
http://www.powerattunements.com/article39.html
http://www.sokrates-digital.de/php_skripte/detailseite.php?ID=AQ+219205&PHPSESSID=f0a5b0c08d0904e976fe5726df41d17d
http://www.sciforums.com/Vedas-An-Overview-t-13485.html
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/07/09/stories/2002070900110200.htm
http://www.zoominfo.com/search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=38974618
http://www.milchar.com/Apr2004/14.html
http://www.kerala.com/wiki-Veda
http://www.theancientsuns.com/MayanCalendar.html <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/213.93.223.217|213.93.223.217]] ([[User talk:213.93.223.217|talk]]) 11:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

Overturn Deletion: The article on Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet deserves to be re-instated. Aside from the article NOT suffering, in my view, from either Vanity or NPOV, neither is considered a strong reason for deletion (as per the WIKI deletion criteria). Others have provided evidence that Ms. Norelli-Bachelet DOES have objectively verifiable credentials. In addition to those already mentioned, her article ‘Cosmology in the Rig Veda’ was published in The Hindu, July 9, 2002 http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/07/09/stories/2002070900110200.htm. Her article ‘In Defence of the Ancient Culture’ was published in The Hindu, November 7, 2000 http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000/11/07/13hdline.htm.

I would like to know what, exactly, in the WIKI article was considered either “unverifiable”, or “original research”?

Comment: The controversy and passions created by a particular author's works should not be criteria for whether a description OF that work appears on the WIKI pages. If the REACTIONS to a particular person's work/creations become the standard by which NPOV status is determined, then, in his day, even the work of someone as important as Gallileo would not have been mentioned in WIKI! Would the fact that the Church Fathers, the very 'powers that be' at the time, found him to be a heretic, have rendered discussion of him ‘inappropriate’ (i.e. WP:BIO) for inclusion in WIKI? One must not confuse the ACCEPTANCE, UNDERSTANDING, or even TOLERANCE of someone's works with the objective acknowledgement of that work's place in the vast scheme of things.
Wiki editors and administrators should allow an objective, NPOV, Wikipedia page for Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet -- the author-in-question. From what I have read on this page (and the links provided) regarding her published works, she has a significant involvement in Indian affairs, discussions regarding the Vedas, and a strong impact on the Integral Yoga community (whether one considers it “positive” or “negative”). Jan Shapiro, USA
*'''Comment'''. Is anyone but me getting an "invasion of the [[WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets|meatpuppets]]" feeling? -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The impression is that you are ignoring/dismissing/not addressing the considerable objections to this BIO page getting deleted. The links provided show that she is a notable figure. Deal with the facts presented, rather than this 'meatpuppets' diversion. KostaG.

*'''Comment:''' Can somebody please paste the contents of the deleted page [[Talk:Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet]] in this discussion. It contained a discussion, links and reasons about PNB's notability. (At least the parts where the links and discussion about her notablity is discussed).

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}


{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28/Gay Nigger Association of America}}
{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28/Gay Nigger Association of America}}

Revision as of 02:28, 15 December 2006

< November 27 November 29 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)


28 November 2006

View Gay Nigger Association of America – Deletion endorsed – 07:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28&oldid=94426305"