Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discourses on PROUT


 * 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   merge to PROUT in a Nutshell.  MBisanz  talk 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Discourses on PROUT

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A "book" of 34 pages,; the article is apparently designed to provide yet one more article for putting in the see alsos and the navbox listing everything connect with the author, however little they may be worth an article. I would have deleted it as G11 entirely promotional except that I've already become involved in some AfD discussions on the other works of this author.  DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; seems to fail the GNG, even depending on primary sources there's very little to say; the article is just part of a broader pattern of promotional editing. bobrayner (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * article creator's comment: the book is a small book published for the first time on October 17, 1959. The reason of the article lies in the effort to describe one of the first works of the vast literary production of the author's. I will try to insert more secondary sources on it to show its adherence to the WP notability criteria. Bob and DGG: This was precisely the work I was trying to do. If something on the article seems to you "promotional" of course I'm here to change it, 'couse this was absolutely unintentional. My intent is to describe something on a neutral point of view. Please refrain from making statements that might appear offensive saying that I write an article doing promotional work. Tell me rather, in a constructive and rational basis, where the article appear to you promotional and thus I can change it. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete (or, since they're cheap, redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article and I don't see it. Location (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete a book still in print after over 50 years would suggest notability, at least. That said, the article as written doesn't assert notability at all, or even try. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  05:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * article creator's comment: I recognize some of the concerns. As I said before I inserted this little book on WP for is historical value. This book later became part of the series PROUT in a Nutshell. If you agree I propose to merge on that article with a brief description.--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge: I agree with the article creator's suggestion above, it is deserving of coverage as a small but significant textbook but not its own Wikipedia article. Keep the title as a redirect page.—Baldy Bill (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I disagree about merging this article with a nutshell series compilation. The book stands on its own merits, not just because it is still in print after more than 50 years but because it is one of the first publications relating to PROUT. The book went out of circulation for some time - and returned in a slightly condensed fashion - due to its revolutionary content. In other words, this book set out (and still to a large extent sets out) the PROUT paradigm for revolution and the establishment of a "cosmic society". --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * delete Sarkar obviously needs a list of works (which I imagine he already has) but something that has no footprint in GBooks whatsoever except in other PROUT texts is plainly not notable. Mangoe (talk) 15:43, 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.