Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell

Neohumanism in a Nutshell

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)

• article creator's comment: This books series contain discourses on Neohumanism given in various occasion by the Indian Philosopher Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• Do you have any evidence to support this notion? This would be evidence from independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I see Cornelius383 has added an "academical" source: It's in the gigantic "references" section of this PDF, although not actually cited in the body of the thesis. That falls a long way short of the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• Keep: Storm in a teapot. And unfortunately more discrimination. DezDeMonaaa (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)