Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2)


 * 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. I am concerned about the discussed neutrality issues and the general tendency of the discussions surrounding these works, but I am closing, not supervoting, and I see consensus to keep. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  07:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is another set of self-published books by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. While there are a several peer-reviewed papers that cite this work, I have not found any reviews or scholarly work that discusses these books and would thus establish notability. I've also been searching the stacks at UC Berkeley, also to no avail. The best independent source on Sarkar's thought, Inayatullah's "Understanding Sarkar" does not list these volumes in its bibliography. I don't believe it will be possible to establish notability for this article moving forward and thus I recommend deletion. Garamond Lethe 06:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete; lacking independent sources, it's impossible to write a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I would point out that this series of books is not at all self-published, as the nominator claims. Indeed, given the fact that the author died in 1990 and the first edition of Volume 1 came out in 1993 (Volume 2 in 1994), it would require a deployment of immense supernatural power for this two-volume series to have been self-published. Such a supernatural power would, I submit, accrue notability for these books without any further investigation. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional comment on nomination: The nominator references Inayatullah and comments that this series of books is not referenced in one of Inayatullah's books. However, "Discourses on Tantra" is referenced in at least one other Inayatullah book, namely, "Neohumanist Educational Futures: Liberating the Pedagogical Intellect" (go to page 94 here). --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 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) 11:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Documentation:* See here. This serious academic article, appearing in the journal "Philosophy East & West" Volume 61 Number 2 April 2011 303-323, published by the University of Hawaii Press, references Discourses on Tantra Volume 2. There is a much larger document by Kang - his PhD thesis - that I will try to secure a copy of by writing to him. In all likelihood, this 413-page PhD thesis will have many more references to "Discourses on Tantra". I quote the last paragraph of the abstract on the University of Queensland website: "This phenomenological and comparative study of Sarkar's texts reveals Sarkar's AM ideology as a deep and comprehensive system of philosophy-praxis containing elements from a wide variety of sources rooted in the Indian tradition. The study also reveals major areas of agreement as well as disagreement between Sarkar's AM and traditional discourses of Indian spirituality. More importantly, it supports the assertion that Sarkar, while overtly non-aligned with any specific or recognised disciplic lineage (sampradaya) of Hindu or Buddhist origin, is nevertheless an authentic interpreter, teacher, and guru of Indian Tantra for the contemporary audience." --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * References (still) don't count towards notability. Garamond Lethe  14:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Editor's note: I put back in the article the deleted academic sources (and footnotes) unfairly deleted ​​by the usual suspects :). Please don't remove again without discussion and wait untill the AfD's end. Tanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge No indication of wp:notability.....zero secondary or independent sources. Note: this block of articles centering on this person been very difficult to Wikify.  Appears to be due to a group of zealous followers aggressively preventing such. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I propose that the subject meets criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT. My argument is that the historical significance of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar renders all of his works notable. J04n(talk page) 11:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, J04n. Thanks for closing Prabhat Samgiita.  We could certainly stand to have a competent argument for Sarkar's literary notability.  Based on the information I have there's been only one Ph.D. dissertation on Sarkar and none of his books are cited more than a couple dozen times in the peer-reviewed literature.  Given that record I don't see how you're reaching "the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study".  Garamond Lethe  12:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * John, I echo Garamond's thanks to you for closing the Prabhat Samgiita AfD... perhaps with a bit more sincerity. And I totally agree with your grounds for notability in this instance. Normally, I would not strongly contest an AfD nomination on a book series that is essentially a compilation of articles published in other places, but in the various compilation series (like Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2)) there are many articles that are not published in English in any other place. Frankly, I totally agree that all of Sarkar's works meet Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT, but - due to limited time for AfD debates - my preference has been to concentrate my energy supporting the original works of Sarkar and especially some of his most important works, like Caryacarya (the social code of Ananda Marga and therefore comparable to Halakha or Sharia but which - to my amazement - got deleted), A Guide to Human Conduct (the ethical code of Ananda Marga, which is now undergoing its second nomination for deletion barely one month after the first failed nomination), and The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism (the landmark book for Sarkar's philosophy of Neohumanism and one of the cornerstones of Sarkar's system of Neohumanist Education, also now undergoing an AfD debate). I can understand Garamond's doubt as to the historical importance of Sarkar, based purely on what he can find in Western academic circles. However, the life of Sarkar was extraordinary - for example, he underwent seven years in jail on trumped up charges, with more than five years and four months fasting in protest of being poisoned in jail - and during that same time, his organization spread like wildfire around the world. Furthermore, Sarkar's contributions reflect progressive novelty in more areas of individual and collective life than any other historical figure that I am aware of. Philosophy, socioeconomic theory, spiritual practices, music, dance, cosmology, ontology, science, history, ethics, and much, much more - Sarkar covered them all. One need not agree with everything that Sarkar said to appreciate such an achievement. One simply needs to understand that these achievements were not mere dabbling. At the very same time as Sarkar was giving his 5,018 songs of Prabhat Samgiita, he also gave 26 original volumes of books on philology (Shabdha Cayanika) and spent many hours in organizational meetings regarding service work around the world - meetings that took place four times each day (seven days a week). So, yes, I think that Sarkar's works meet criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT, and I am amazed that anyone would concern themselves so much to seek the deletion of such articles. After all, this is a virtual encyclopedia. We are not killing trees or eating up a great amount of any other precious resource by providing accurate and neutral articles on a subject that may be of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Okay, these articles might not accumulate the greatest number of hits on Wikipedia. But so what? Wikipedia still provides a service to the public by making this information available, especially when any of these books are not yet cited in Garamond's "peer-reviewed literature". Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT and WP:IAR are tailor-made for a case like this. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an easy case to make if it's true. Course listings and syllabi are online.  I have no difficulty finding syllabi for classes reading Tagore, Rushdie, Naipul, etc., etc.  Outside the walled garden of Ananda Marga I can't find a single university course that has Sarkar on the reading list.  Can you?  And if you only find one (or two, or three), how are you going to make the leap from that to Sarkar being a "common subject"?  Garamond Lethe  17:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Garamond, pardon me, but I am not going to engage in another lengthy debate with you. But I will point out that you are not reading Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT the same way as I do. That criterion does not state that the "author's life and body of written work" must be or even is currently "a common subject of academic study". It merely states that it "would be a common subject of academic study". I contend that this is indeed the case with Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. As demonstrated at three other AfD nominations that you filed - Prabhat Samgiita AfD, A Guide to Human Conduct 2nd AfD, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism AfD - this is already taking place. Furthermore, there are numerous research institutes around the world - in the USA, in Australia, in Venezuela, and so on - dedicated to Sarkar's Progressive Utilization Theory. Research on Sarkar's theory of microvita is also going on in various parts of the world - for example, in India and in Germany. And, I understand (but do not have any link on this) that Sarkar's books on philology have been incorporated into at least one Bangladesh university's curriculum. Someone from Bangladesh wrote me just today, so I may inquire from him about that. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC) amended microvita research links --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC) added links for some PROUT research institutes --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Trough these two books, the author has examined and has reinterpreted Tantra, an important part of spirituality. I have knowledge that some independent sources expressing that as well. However, I don't have the time to pursue and research about that. The consequent deletion requests, so many in number, was done in this way (tandem) to prevent those interested to make research and substantially oppose the deletion. Anyway, apart from that the number 5 of the notability books, mentioned above is enough for strongly keeping this article. The article, as in the case of Prabhata Samgiita, is expandable. As-so-far I do not see any logical reason to delete this article. --Universal Life (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * keep: an article of an important book in Two volumes. We can try to develope it.--Anta An (talk) 12:11, 15 February 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.