Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)


 * 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   delete. I did note a couple of requests to let the debate run longer, but I don't at this point see doing that changing the outcome. The clear consensus position, especially among uninvolved editors, is that the sources presented are insufficient to sustain the article or demonstrate notability. If additional sourcing meeting notability requirements, meaning being secondary, reliable, covering the subject substantively and in-depth, and uninvolved with the subject can be found, this matter can be revisited at that time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently non-notable book. Lots of ghits - from people selling it. Seems to lack in-depth coverage by independent sources. Not to be confused with "Ananda Marga", which is notable. bobrayner (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC) bobrayner (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * article creator's comment: This book of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, was written on 1956, originally published in Bengali and translated in English and in other languages. Is considered to be the samája shástra ("social treatise") of the social and spiritual movement Ananda Marga. On my opinion this book meets the WP notability criteria at least on three 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.--Cornelius383 (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * merge into the article on the author as the reasonable solution. Not really separately notable. Our usual standard for considering someone sufficiently important that all the works are notable is not just historically significant, but "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable" -- in practice this approximates to "famous". There should be an entry of some sort for the book, but the interests of readers will be best served by including the information in the article on the author.  DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: This book 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. Regarding the first criterion (3), this series of books has been designated as the social code for all members of Ananda Marga by their spiritual preceptor. It includes ceremonies from baby namings to weddings to funerals and provides instructions regarding all aspects of social life. Regarding the second criterion (5), it is self-explanatory. The fact that Sarkar wrote extensively on such a wide range of topics is itself historically notable (as I doubt that another such example may be found). In my estimation, the question of "merge" does not arise, as a merge would necessitate too brief an explanation of the content or a ridiculously long article on the author. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Abhidevananda (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Can you provide some kind of evidence for your first point? Hopefully from an independent source, rather than one within the sarkarsphere. It seems a bit tangential to policy but I'm open to whatever independent sources say, if you can find one. Your second points has absolutely no basis in policy. bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Would the Supreme Court of India satisfy you, Bob? Or how about the courts in various other countries? Just about any time that AMPS has appeared in court... for any reason whatsoever... Caryacarya is referenced. And, why would someone have to be outside of what you call the sarkarsphere. As someone firmly within that sphere, I can authoritatively and reliably state that Caryacarya "has made a significant contribution to [this] religious movement". In any event, the two points that I mention are two out of the five points listed at Notability_(books). If you had followed the link I provided, you would have realized that this is indeed WP policy. Bob, in my opinion, before making or supporting an AfD on a book article, one should at least be conscious of what is written on that page. According to that page, a book is considered to be notable if it meets only one of those five criteria. Here, we see 2 out of 5 criteria met. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: The notability of this series of books is obvious. As Ananda Marga has its page, the nomination for deletion appears to be both ignorant and abusive. BobRaynor's original remarks regarding "ghits - from people selling it" are indicative of a lack of understanding and likely bias towards a particular group - insulting and ridiculous. Definitely not in the spirit of assuming good faith. An honest editor would have removed the nomination by now. The inclusion of the article should stand on the grounds explained above. DezDeMonaaa (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC) — DezDeMonaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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) 13:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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) 21:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment: the article provide only basic informations and I can add more details if necessary. 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 on WP.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 *  Keep (Further Clarification): As it seems that Bob Rayner is unlikely to do the decent thing by simply withdrawing this frivolous AfD, let me offer additional arguments (clarification) for my Keep vote. As I mentioned already, Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) is the social code of Ananda Marga. To put that in context, it should be understood that in the early-to-mid 1980s, the Supreme Court of India recognized Ananda Marga as a "religion". This ruling was made in large part due to the fact that Sarkar had given an extensive social code in the form of these three books. In brief, Caryacarya effectively prescribes the ideal way in which a member of Ananda Marga should live her/his life, 24-7, from cradle to grave.


 * Among many other things, Caryacarya includes a baby naming ceremony, a marriage ceremony, and even a funeral/memorial ceremony - all of them quite distinctive. These ceremonies are not only recognized within Ananda Marga but also, in some parts of the world, by secular society. For example, in the 1970s, as a registered marriage celebrant in Australia, I performed many legally binding wedding ceremonies in accordance with the system prescribed in Caryacarya Part 1. Many of those wedding ceremonies were well covered by the news media (newspaper, radio, and television). Even persons who were not members of Ananda Marga sought me out for performing their wedding ceremony in accordance with the system found in Caryacarya.


 * Further putting this in context, the social code of Ananda Marga is comparable to the Sharia law of Islam and the Halakha of Judaism. Has anyone on Wikipedia nominated for deletion - or merger - the article on the Jewish and Muslim social codes? Even if anyone were to do so, I doubt that the nomination would be taken seriously. Just looking at a small part of the Ananda Marga social code found in Caryacarya, the system for bringing complaints and resolving disputes, this could be compared to the canon law of the Catholic Church. Has anyone on Wikipedia nominated for deletion - or merger - the article on the Catholic canon law? Even if anyone were to do so, I doubt that the nomination would be taken seriously.


 * Yes, it is a fact that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all much longer established than Ananda Marga. But once one accepts that Ananda Marga has notability - as Bob expressly does in his AfD nomination - then it almost automatically follows that the distinctive social code of Ananda Marga would also have notability. I stated above that this series of books, Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3), meets the WP notability criteria on two grounds. But Bob - and DGG - have only offered a different subjective interpretation of the second ground that I stated. Neither of them has addressed the first ground: I don't believe any rational person would deny the fact that the series of books under consideration here has in fact "made a significant contribution to a notable religious movement". Should anyone choose to argue that this is not the case - that Caryacarya has not made a significant contribution to Ananda Marga - then I submit that the burden of proof should be on that person to substantiate the notion. Ivory-tower opinions and accusations, having no basis in fact, may best be overlooked. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't !vote twice. One canvassed vote is too many, two is beyond the pale. I have taken the slightly bold step of striking through your second "keep" !vote. Also, if you could stop the walls of text, that would be nice too. bobrayner (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 *  Delete / merge Hold this open until at least Janaury 21st 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.  North8000 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had conversations with the main author at my talk page and theirs.  They do not yet understand that the system here is likely to judge based on wp:GNG  and so we are not seeing any identification of any wp:GNG-suitable sources that may exist.  This needs another week for them to understand and identify those if they exist. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge and redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. Disclosure : This Afd was mentioned in Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Location (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * article creator's comment: As I said here: "Outrageous statements of Bobrayner" and as you can see at the incipit of this page ("Lots of ghits - from people selling it") I must point out the outrageous statements of Bobrayner that have been noticed also by other users. As a WP editor I'm trying to do my best here, I give respect and I pretend respect by other users too.
 * And how is this relevant to the AfD? If you think he is being uncivil, file a report at the appropriate place. Just watch out for the boomerang. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My complaint is in this talk because the phrase "Lots of ghits - from people selling it" was also written here, at the incipit of this talk. Since his sentence was absolutely inappropriate, my observation here is absolutely licit.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment: anyway I will insert the under construction template on the article and I will try to insert secondary sources.Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just added in the article an official source that states: "the Ananda Marga religion includes a governance system (Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha or AMPS) which is set out in a sacred text called Carya Carya". I think that this document should be sufficient to show the aderence to WP criteria notability at least on ground: (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..--Cornelius383 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as not meeting notability requirements (mentions in third party sources, etc.) Collect (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment: sorry but I have again to point out that, what is attested on the official document that I added yesterday on the article states: "the Ananda Marga religion includes a governance system (Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha or AMPS) which is set out in a sacred text called Carya Carya". It compels us to consider this book as the basic text of this religion/spiritual movement. And that is why, on a rational basis, I believe that after the add of this resource this article should remain as a standalone article. This at least in accordance with the dictates of grounds: (3)The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a ...religious movement, and (5)The book's author is historically significant (see all the quotations related to him, his literary production, his social movements and so on..). Otherwise, I wonder what is the use of WP notability criteria?--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's all very well for a book within a belief-system to say "this is an important book". Doesn't prove anything; just circular reasoning. There's no point in saying "I believe in X, I wrote an article about a book, the book is important in X, so it must be kept". There are still no independent sources which attest to this importance. bobrayner (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with others, this should be deleted per WP:SIGCOV. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  20:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment: OK but let's tray to discuss all on a rational basis. Follow my reasoning please: 1)is there an academic and accredited source quoting clearly that the book Caryacarya is "the sacred test of Ananda Marga religion"? YES. 2)Is there a rule in WP that says that if a book is significant for a religious movement we can write an article about it? YES (WP criteria notability point (3)) 3)Is the author historically significant? YES point (5) of WP NC. (If you want I can insert this academic quote/source: Giani Zail Singh, seventh president of India, has said about Sarkar: "Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India."(Inayatullah, Sohail. (2002) Understanding Sarkar: The Indian Episteme, Macrohistory and Transformative Knowledge. Leiden: Brill). It's sufficient I think, but if you debate of the historical importance of this philosopher I can add more citations to confirm it. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Zail Singh may well have praised Sarkar; but that's for the Sarkar article, it doesn't mean we need a separate article about every thing that Sarkar ever wrote or did. bobrayner (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It shows the historical importance of the author: and this is important in order to demonstrate the adherence of the article at the WP notability criteria point (5) (i.e. "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable"). Not only because is the highest Indian authority to assert it. But because it is also mentioned in an academic source. And why Caryacarya is important? Because, as stated from the other academic source that I've added, is the most important "sacred text" of this religious movement. We have now two academic sources showing the adherence of the article at point (3) and point (5) of WP NC.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. bobrayner (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP : I have stated clearly that any time Ananda Marga has appeared in court, Caryacarya is cited. That is unavoidable, because it is the Ananda Marga social code. So a simple google search turns up numerous court documents that show Caryacarya being mentioned, indeed mentioned prominently. The AfD nominator's insinuation that all of the google hits are for people selling the book is rubbish. Those voting Delete have either not done adequate research or else they have cast their votes on the basis of prejudice or group sentiment. Here are just a few examples of court-related google hits in connection with Caryacarya.


 * (1)

______________________________________________________________________

"The relevant question herein for consideration is whether the High Court is correct in it's finding that Tandava dance is an essential and integral part of Ananda Margi faith based on the revised edition of Carya Carya."

Online here

and


 * (2)

______________________________________________________________________

"5.3. The tenets of the Ananda Margi are both oral and written as in the case of many religions. The fact that there were no writings to show to the Court that Tandava dance is to be performed in public, did not negative the existence of such precepts. Moreover, in the 1986 edition of Carya Carya specific mention was made by Anand Murtiji of the requirement of Tandava dance in procession on special functions and festivals. [1048-H; 1049-A-B]"

Online here

and


 * (3)

______________________________________________________________________

Memo of Law (Denver District Court)

"2. During his physical life, the Rev. Baba gave AMPS its Holy Scriptures, which include Ananda Sutram, Subhasita Samgraha, Ananda Vacanamrtam, Namami Krsna Sundaram, Namah Shivaya Shimtaya, Guide to Human Conduct (Yama and Niyama), and Caryacarya Parts 1, 2, and 3. Exhibits 1-2 and 6; Exhibit 13 at 29:8-30:4 and 89:11-91:10. Caryacarya is the social code portion of the AMPS Holy Scriptures. Exhibit 2. In 1956, Rev. Baba gave AMPS Caryacarya Parts 1, 2, and 3, in Bengali. The first English addition was published in 1962. Id. In 1995, the sixth addition of Caryacarya was approved by the Central Committee and published in English, Hindi and Bengali. It is currently the official version of the Carayacarya and has been since its publication in 1995. Id."

Online here

and


 * (4)

______________________________________________________________________

Ananda Marga versus Tomar (Australia)

"The defendants say that this material is relevant because:

"o AMPS Ltd is the vehicle through which the Ananda Marga religion operates in Australia, holds its assets and receives its funding;

"o the Ananda Marga religion includes a governance system (Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha or AMPS) which is set out in a sacred text called Carya Carya;"

Online here


 * (5)

______________________________________________________________________

These excerpts are from the 2011-05-16 ruling of the HONORABLE MICHAEL MARTINEZ, Judge of the Denver District Court, in the case of ANANDA MARGA, INC, ET AL, v. ACHARYA VIMALANANDA AVADHUTA, ET AL.

Pages 11

11 Ananda Marga has a recognized creed in the form of

12 worship. From every evidence that I have heard, Reverend

13 Baba was very thorough, very detailed in his vision, and was

14 also very prolific in his writings, that is probably an

15 understatement. Nonetheless, there were certain writings,

16 doctrines, codes, and practices of Ananda Marga that stand

17 out and have been corroborated by the testimony in the

18 record as well as the exhibits.

19 Ananda Marga, the path of bliss, Caryacarya parts

20 one, two, and three, Ananda Sutram, and Ananda Marga

21 elementary philosophy. Reverend Baba, on the evidence

22 before me, has established that he was quite a visionary in

23 his desire, in his goal to promote, to establish the path of

24 bliss and to promote the path of bliss for all adherents,

25 open to everyone, to whomever may wish to avail themselves

Page 12

1 of it. In so doing, the record is undisputed and clear that

2 he created a structure for Ananda Marga going forward.

3 Significant, impressive in its detail, in its

4 hierarchy, in its doctrine, and discipline. Those are the

5 most -- at least it stood out most to me what clearly

6 established in the Caryacarya parts one, two, and three, I

7 seem to recall I think it was Plaintiff's Exhibit 15, I

8 might be off with the number, that had the largest excerpts

9 from that.

...

Page 21

4 Reverend Baba provided for structure to ensure

5 that the mission was being evaluated periodically and

6 progressing, provided for inspections of each sector to

7 ensure that they were complying with the Caryacarya and

8 other rules of conduct and conventions of Ananda Marga.

...

Page 27

2 As the highest branch of the Ananda Marga mission,

3 AMPS Central in North America, Ananda Marga, Inc, stet

4 organized and operated exclusively for the religious

5 purposes of promulgating the religious purposes of Ananda

6 Marga. As such, it is governed by the principles and the

7 structure of Ananda Marga and AMPS Central, including

8 Caryacarya.

...

Page 38

1 denomination. AMPS Central is a central authority for AMPS.

2 Ananda Marga, Inc, is a part of the AMPS denomination, it

3 has been testified to the constitution of the AMPS

4 incorporates the Caryacarya, AMPS is governed by the

5 Caryacarya, the AMPS procedural rules, other writings, and

6 scriptures promulgated by Reverend Baba.

7 Ananda Marga, Inc, is an affiliate of and

8 subordinate to the AMPS Central headquartered in Ananda

9 Nagar, India. AMPS Central is the parent organization of

10 Ananda Marga, Inc, and all US organizations subordinate to

11 Ananda Marga, Inc. Ananda Marga, Inc, and the New York

12 Sector of AMPS are one and the same. Ananda Marga, Inc, is

13 governed by the Caryacarya, AMPS procedural rules, and other

14 holy scriptures.

15 You know, repeatedly I heard testimony qualifying

16 the obligations and the rules, we do the best we can, time,

17 place, and person, but even that interpretation connotes the

18 same conclusion, which is Ananda Marga, Inc, is governed by

19 the Caryacarya, the AMPS procedural rules, and other

20 scriptures of the AMPS.

Online here

--Abhidevananda (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can !vote only once. So, I've stricken off the keep. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  18:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment: tanks. I've immediately added all in the article in a concise form.--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just added another secondary source US Sports Academy (America's Sports University). Tanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now we have 4 legal documents and 3 academic secondary sources on this article to show it's adherence to point 3 and 5 of WP notability criteria. I hope it's sufficient.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Trial transcripts (including material which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial) are not just non–independent sources, per WP:OR they are also primary sources. The four legal documents certainly don't compensate for the lack of coverage in reliable independent sources as required by WP:GNG. It also does not establish 3 and 5 of WP:BKCRIT: just because a book's author was involved in a trial doesn't mean he or his work is notable, neither is that a significant contribution to any art form. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note: 1)when one Court accepts (and don't rejects) that something on a legal document has probative value, this is considered true for the purposes of a lawful consideration of that subject. So you have to accept it as a part of the legal and public structure of that organization. This is important because the Court is an entity not only independent from the subject but is a legal entity that can also definitely outline its public structure. So these books are part of the Ananda Marga spiritual organization and this legal document is useful to show the adherence of this article to point (3) of WP notability criteria. But here we have also several academic sources showing the adherence of this article to point (5) of WP notability criteria too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTE: CK consistently misunderstands or misrepresents the argument. First, it was not the "book's author" - actually multiple books - that was involved in a trial. Second, the ruling of judges in trials would have to be "independent", almost by definition. Otherwise, who would give any value to the legal system? Third, no one is talking about making a significant contribution to an art form. Rather, the point is that there is a significant contribution to a religious movement. But, hey, 0 for 3 - that seems to be par for the course for a man/woman who styles himself/herself as "Correct Knowledge". :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Abhidevananda, we shouldn't have to remind you of this over and over again:
 * 1. Personal attacks are bad. Stop that.
 * 2. You can't win an AfD by saying "keep" over and over again. One canvassed keep !vote is bad; two is beyond the pale; three is absurd.
 * There are some other principles which you really ought to start following, but I don't want to turn this into a laundry-list. bobrayner (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Trial transcripts are non–independent because they have arguments from parties which have a deep interest in the outcome of the case (and obviously no editorial independence). You can argue about court judgements though and such arguments have a place in talk pages of Wikipedia policies, not here. On a side note, it is uncivil and a bit odd to end with statements like "man/woman who styles himself/herself as" head of a cult etc. And "0/3"? Wikipedia is not a battleground. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  21:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What religious movement were you referring to? Surely, not Ananda Marga which describes itself as a social and spiritual movement (not religious or political). And independent tertiary sources describe it entirely as something else. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  21:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In various countries Ananda Marga is legally registered as a religious movement. So its key texts are considered as "Religious books" or "Sacred books". Do you understand now?--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As regards the documents produced in the article and the various academic sources that shows the adherence of the article at the WP notability criteria point 3 and 5 please read what I wrote before or simply take a new look at the article. We cannot transform an article into a boring list of sources.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Court documents are primary sources. Having to fall back on interpretation of a court document to prove a point about one of the secondary notability guidelines further underlines that there's not enough real, independent sources which discuss the topic in depth. bobrayner (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Expanding on Bob's comment— Sacred to a cult/organization or not the books are non–notable. If they were, you would have found significant coverage on them in reliable independent sources. Regarding WP:NBOOK (WP:BKCRIT), even assuming that the book meets 3 & 5, the guideline ends with: These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying books that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a book meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the book. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  23:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but these are just your personal views that have nothing to do with the veracity and authority of the legal and academic sources produced. A system of rules exists to be respected and not interpreted according to the opinions of everyone. I inserted the kind of secondary sources requested from WP. And I've inserted several more than the minimum requested for WP notability. If you think that the Supreme Court of India (or of other Countries), or the President of the Indian Republic or other academic sources haven't any value this is only your personal opinion.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In any event, I am glad that we crossed this threshold point, CK. You have finally recognized that there is a presumption of notability. As such, the burden of proof falls on the you, the accuser, rather than the article creator or article supporters. In other words, at this stage - and for all other books by P.R. Sarkar that meet either criterion 3 or 5 - it is up to you to prove non-notability rather than up to anyone else to prove notability! So kindly knock yourself out trying to show that the presumption of notability should not apply in such cases. Obviously, you have not made a "thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources", or you would have found the court rulings. Please take as much time as you need on this matter. Naturally the spurious AfD should be withdrawn while you spin your wheels. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Abhidevananda, please stop making stuff up; Correct Knowledge did not mention a presumption of notability. Come back if you find any evidence of notability. "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." bobrayner (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth Abhidevananda. This is getting way too desperate. All the arguments have been laid, let's just wait for the closing admin. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  03:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Normally I do not ever vote in favor of an article that I wrote. But in this particular case I support the content of this article with my vote. 1)This book is the social treatise of a spiritual organization that exists in almost all Countries (and in several is legally recognised as a religion), 2)was written from a philosopher: a-that is considered prominent even by the president of India, b-that as a vast literary production on many languages (take a look on the Congress on-line Library), c-that is quoted in tens of academic secondary sources, d-that founded many humanitarian and social organizations (regularly recognised and registered like PROUT or AMURT etc.). Evidence of that is regularly inserted in the article with secondary sources that exceed undoubtedly the two.--Cornelius383 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's actually "quoted in tens of secondary sources" then why did you have to resort to Ananda Marga court documents (copied into Google Docs), and a Scribd page written by a Sarkar follower (ie. neither a reliable source nor an independent one)? The article doesn't actually quote any secondary sources, because no secondary source has any coverage that's worth quoting. bobrayner (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't understand my point. Please read again. In that particular point that you extrapolated out of the context I was speaking about the author, to show you his importance (he is quoted in many academic secondary sources and even from the Indian President..) and adherence with point (5) of WP notability criteria that alone should be enough to avoid cancellation of an article. But I've added also more secondary sources, like the legal ones that you quote, to show you that the book is a fundamental text of a religion: point (3) of WP notability criteria. Do you understand now?--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean the primary sources where a Google Doc says that somebody from Amanda Marga made a statement to a court that something written by Sarkar is important to Sarkar followers? We need something from outside the bubble. Reliable, independent secondary sources. If somebody inside the bubble says that in a courtroom, the court doesn't magically make it more official & independent. bobrayner (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read what I've said before and maintain respect for others and be constructive that is fundamental to WP. You have expressed your opinion. I consider your opinion an opinion. I have added all the secondary sources needed to show the adherence to point (3) and point (5) of WP notability, included many legal documents accepted from the Courts of different Countries and even expressed from the Supreme Court of India. The rules are rules. Let's the administrator decide now. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nomination. Merge only if you must. About half the article is padding; there doesn't, imho, seem to be enough there to be worth merging. If it weren't for References, Footnotes, Citations and Sources it wouldn't even have a TOC. I might also point out that the article readable prose size is 189 words, while this debate is already 4328 words. And counting.  David_FLXD  (Talk) 05:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fantastic... a new argument for deletion - the article has too few words and too few sections. To overcome this objection (perhaps not very substantial), all an editor would have to do is create a separate section for Caryacarya Part 1, Caryacarya Part 2, and Caryacarya Part 3, perhaps with a short description of the content of each book. I wonder how long the article creator should be given to carry out this little task before the guillotine falls on his article. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually my argument is "as per nomination", i.e. lacking in notability and in reliable sources. For Cornelius383, see below, 3 sources have been added since the version I saw, but none of the new sources address the issue of notability or confirm any specifics of the content; they only confirm the existence of the work, which is not in dispute. For Abhinevananda, my point is first, there are more "footnotes", "citations", "sources" and "mentions in legal documents" than there is readable content in the article. Secondly, it is not the brevity of the article that is at issue; there are many good little stubs that are far shorter. It is the proportion of the small size of the article in relation to the enormous bulk of the debate. Certain people, naming no names, are putting more a lot more effort into arguing about the article on AfD than they are into improving the article. I do think the article was nominated rather early in its development; I would have held off for at least another week or two, given the holiday period (assuming I remembered to check the creation date). That said, however, I see no real prospect of improving the article by allowing more time. IF, however, someone can point me to a real, independent and reliable source which shows notability, and offers a real basis for improvement to the article, I will consider changing my present position.  David_FLXD  (Talk) 15:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment: this is a new argument. If the article is too short or poor I can change it and add more contents no problem. But I need some time to do that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment: I think that David_FLXD have seen the previous version of some ours ago when the user Bobrainer deleted many of the sources that I've added. Now I have restored all hoping more fairness. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When you've been caught out misusing sources, edit-warring to restore them is a relly bad idea. bobrayner (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You deleted some sources that I inserted on the article and probably David_FLXD have seen the previous version without the sources that I inserted. Please do not do it until the debate is over. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One source doesn't discuss caryacarya at all, one source doesn't say what you're citing it for, and one is selfpublished (on Scribd) by a Sarkar follower. They certainly make the article look well-sourced at first glance, though, so I can understand the appeal to keep them in until the AfD is over; but we cannot allow sources to be abused over and over again. Once those are gone, the remaining sources are not independent at all. bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is strictly your opinion. Your action to delete the sources when the article is on AfD discussion is deplorable. And the language that often you use and your way of trying to delete all that is linked with this argument too. Various user have complained your behavior. Please keep an appropriate behavior and respect others and their work.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was merely stating some facts about crappy sources. If your opinion is that those sources are fine, then en.wikipedia's policies are sadly incompatible with many of your opinions, and you may find it less stressful to work on some other website. bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, please stop badgering everybody who disagrees with you on these AfDs. It's really not helpful. bobrayner (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that this should be kept open for at least another week. I've had conversations with Cornelius383 at my talk page and theirs. They do not yet understand the system here is that it is likely to be judged based on wp:GNG and do not understand wp:GNG. So we are not seeing any identification of any wp:GNG-suitable sources that may exist. This needs another week for them to understand and then identify those if they exist or for somebody to do or review such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. Cornelius383 and I do not see eye-to-eye on sources and notability, but maybe a little extra time will help the picture become clearer, one way or the other. bobrayner (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In fairness here is at least one apparently independent source which shows that one of the volumes which are the subject of the article is being made use of, and incidentally confirms some of the content. I don't think it's enough to show notability on its own, but it's better than nothing. I've added it to the article under See also.  David_FLXD  (Talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, I cannot conceive of any reason why anyone (or WP) would not consider the ruling of a judge to be an independent and verifiable source. So, for example, the ruling of the honorable Michael Martinez, Judge of the Denver District Court, that I quoted extensively above makes it crystal clear that Caryacarya is highly notable as it was clearly a deciding factor in the ruling. But if a judge's ruling is not an independent and verifiable source, whereas NPR is, then perhaps this newspaper article from India about an Indian Supreme Court ruling will establish notability.--Abhidevananda (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Anybody who actually reads that source will see that it's about the tandava dance rather than caryacarya. bobrayner (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Just because the Caryacarya is mentioned with Ananda Marga in a ruling on tandava dance it doesn't automatically become notable. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  23:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BK. And while we're at it, the increasing desperation of Cornelius383 is very much giving the appearance of COI / SPAM.  In the unlikely event that the article is kept, which I don't think it should, Cornelius383 should stay away from editing it as he appears too close to the subject to edit constructively. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  05:38, 15 January 2013 (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.