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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:45, 16 February 2013

A Guide to Human Conduct

(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. Garamond Lethe 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The previous nominator for deletion, even has withdrawn his nomination as he says that the article is indeed notable.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. Garamond Lethe 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.) Garamond Lethe 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]

I've been told a number of stories about references recently that didn't turn out to be true, so I'd prefer to see the references myself first before withdrawing the nomination. Garamond Lethe 20:58, 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. Garamond Lethe 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. Garamond Lethe 14:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I made it clear that a substantial portion of that scholarly article is about the content of "A Guide to Human Conduct". --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:26, 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. Garamond Lethe 17:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the Ananda Marga education system (often referred to as "neohumanist education") See here --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:21, 9 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]

delete The usual array of self-referential, in-world, self-published sources. Mangoe (talk) 01:46, 12 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]

That is not how the standard works. The schools are obviously related to the author, being schools founded on the principles of the organization he founded! Mangoe (talk) 11:03, 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]

Here is a signed statement by Mary Anne Lovage, Head Teacher of the Sunrise Nursery and Primary School in London. She talks about the international educational trust that her school is part of, and she testifies to the importance of the two books, A Guide to Human Conduct and The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism in their teacher training. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC) updated with link to school website --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:39, 15 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]
Strong keep: the intervention of Abhidevananda convinced me to change my vote from "keep" to "strong keep".--Anta An (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 <hr style="width:55%;" />
 *'''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.) --[[User:Colapeninsula|Colapeninsula]] ([[User talk:Colapeninsula|talk]]) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
+*'''Strong keep''': the intervention of Abhidevananda convinced me to change my vote from "keep" to "strong keep".--[[User:Anta An|Anta An]] ([[User talk:Anta An|talk]]) 00:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)