Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya


 * 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   keep. Consensus is that there are enough reliable reports about the organization - since nomination the article and the sourcing has been greatly improved by User:Chiswick Chap - (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is not my field of specialty at all, and I don't quite know what this falls into, but it is a tone concern with the edits of — the only ones by the account, all to this article. Doesn't quite seem all that notable to me, either, perhaps just another think tank. Raymie (t • c) 05:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The sources that I can find in English all seem to refer to the subject as the publisher of Satchidanandendra Saraswati's writings, so if independent notability can't be established then I would suggest merging/redirecting to his article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. That might be a plausible deletion alternative. Raymie (t • c) 01:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep - I'm very wary of deleting things like this from India - firstly we aren't very good at reading Sanskrit, Kannada, etc, and secondly a lot of the Indian newspapers did not have online archives until very recently. But there do seem to be reliable sources:


 * The Hindu newspaper does actually have a brief entry this week, for a talk given at Adhyatmaprakasha Karyalaya, Bangalore. This impeccable source shows existence, and that the organization is a place for religious discourse as claimed. (We don't need long entries for this purpose.) Here's another example from The Hindu 9 June 2011.


 * Devasthanam: Sankara Acarya (page 1, Shankara's life) references a book on Shankara published by APK, so confirming that APK acts (as it claims) as a publisher as well as a forum. I suggest that these two alone establish basic notability. I've added a few basic refs to the article and tidied it up a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article seems to have many problems. But APK has published good scholarly work in the local language ( Kannada) which is not available in electronic media or in English.  I would suggest not to delete this article in a hurry. We can wait for some more editions before coming to a conclusion.--Skbhat (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: APK may be a non-profit, but this page smacks of self-advertising. I feel it violates WP:N, WP:SPIP, WP:COI and WP:NPOV. There is no other paper apart from Hindu that mentions it (even there, the orgn. is mentioned as a small note). According to Notability_(organizations_and_companies), Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Veryhuman (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I hear what you say, but I actually don't think so. I suspect someone went along to an APK meeting and thought, why aren't they on WP - and did a newbie job on the page, complete with the honorifics natural in India that seem so much like blatant 'selling' to us in the West. I've added some sources - I agree the existing ones are thin. Will look out some more evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Have added substantial quotations with refs from The Hindu and The Times of India, and have de-peacocked the article, so previous 'Delete' claims no longer true. Hope you find it better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I still dont consider the article worthy of an encyclopedic mention. My opinion doesnt say anything about the organization - it really may be doing significant work. However, on Wikipedia, a wiki entry needs to be strongly supported by secondary sources. Note that most references added are either self-cited WP:SPIP or original research WP:OR. I did a search myself on Google, but I couldnt find anything much. Plus, as Raymie mentions below, the article is awkwardly written, especially the Reception section. There are only 6-7 words in the two neutral sources (ToI and Hindu) that talk about this organization. The author tries hard to mention those occurrences, but that is clearly not the way a Wikipedia article is written. Veryhuman (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's getting much better, but I'm still concerned that it seems kinda spartan and rather awkward in writing. Are all the odd capital letters in that one quote intended? Raymie (t • c) 01:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mmm, good point. The odd capitals in that quote were in the original, it's a kind of phonetic spelling. I think I'll be bold and take them out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

 Keep : I would vote a keep. The foundation is very old and quiet known in IndiaJethwarp (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite well known is Original Research. I'd be glad if this statement is supported by Reliable sources. Veryhuman (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the sources for notability are tight there in the article. The two English language Indian newspapers that we have always relied on here as RS for India-related topics. To say that the articles are only from these papers seems a little paradoxical. (Especially when very few others are available to most of us working here)   DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the improvements made by User:Chiswick Chap since this process was commenced. The Hindu and The Times of India put this page pass the bar, as noted by User:DGG above. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.