Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Society (Parts 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   delete. Based on the policy-derived arguments, this seems to be a fairly clear consensus. No in-depth coverage found, no independent reviews, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Human Society (Parts 1 and 2)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self-published collection by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. Eleven citations to each volume per google scholar but no scholarly or independent discussion of the book. Volumes are listed in Inayatullah's _Understanding Sarkar_ but not discussed. Article states that the chapters that make up this work were reprinted in "Prout in a Nutshell", the article of which was recently redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Requesting redirection or deletion due to lack of notability and the low likelihood that notability could be established going forward. Garamond Lethe 03:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: This nomination starts off with a false assertion. These books are not self-published. Furthermore, the fact that the material in them has been republished in the "PROUT in a Nutshell" series does not mean that the original books are somehow not notable by reverse inheritance (although I should mention here that I still consider the "PROUT in a Nutshell" series to be notable). As the nominator himself states, there are several citations in relation to these books. And the books are referenced on several Wikipedia pages, perhaps most notably at Law of Social Cycle. Hence, I believe that the notability of these books is adequately established, especially in light of the usual problems of systemic bias. I have no doubt that many relevant documents can be found with a painstaking search of Indian sources in English, Hindi, Bengali, and so on. However, given the fact that Wikipedia is not a full-time job for me and I am coping with nine (9) concurrent AfD nominations from this same nominator, not to mention questionable edits on other articles not yet nominated for deletion by him, I would prefer to forgo such a time-consuming exercise. -Abhidevananda (talk) 08:05, 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) 11:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete; "self published" seems like reasonable shorthand for something published by a press which exists to print that author's beliefs. Lacking independent sources, we can't build neutral articles about these topics. bobrayner (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * delete More in-world publishing, no evidence that anyone outside Ananda Marga cares. Mangoe (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: an article to expand but not to delete.--Anta An (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)




 * Delete - I was unable to find unbiased, independent material proving that this is in any way notable per Wikipedia criteria.--Zananiri (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep-sourced article of a notable topic/author.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, which seems pretty obvious--I refer to all our prior discussions of related articles. The only real issue is whether we should redirect. Often I support a redirect from a less-than-notable book, but not in this case, because the title is so totally generic that the redirect would be useless.  DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete - no one has shown evidence of notability for this book. This is one of a set of articles being staunchly defended by disciples of the author but there is not evidence of notability outside of his followers. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 22 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.