Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj


 * 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. It has been rightly pointed out that books by a notable author are not inherently notable themselves, and consensus is that insufficient notability has been demonstrated for this title. Shereth 21:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ism_schism this comment was added by User:Goethean at 01:29, 12 July 2008, note added by Abd (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply The lack of notability of this subject is not helped by a review of my edit history. If you have any reliable sources or reasons why this subject is notable - these would be good to add to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are and  nominating so many articles for deletion? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 01:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For me... Because this article lacks both notability and reliable sources - it deserves a Strong Delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because some editors do the dirty work of going though non-notable subjects and nominating them, that does not make this a less credible application of the policy. Policy is that if the subject not notable, ie no 3rd party sources exist to prove the claims of notability, it should be deleted. There are no such sources to support this article. Please read what wikipedia is not and WP:NOTABILITY. Check it:
 * Wikidās ॐ 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidās ॐ 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Better Google searches: Google books Google Scholar Google News archives Google News &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - after examination of the above links, the book has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is deemed to be not notable. A book advertisement. Wikidās ॐ 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 169 Google Books hits, 64 Google Scholar hits, and umpteen thousand Google Web hits aren't notable. Fascinating. I'm sure you'd feel exactly the same way if this debate was over a Vashnavite figure. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many vaishnavite figures with more google hits may be deleted, self published or promotional info is not from reliable sources, that are missing. Clearly not a single academic source that is independent of the subject, that discusses or reviews this book. Books like that can stay where they are - in the book stores, not in Encyclopedia. Wikidās ॐ 22:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, they might be hypothetically. But I'm guessing that they won't be. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidas claims to have examined "the above links," fifteen minutes after they were posted. He must be really, really fast, so perhaps he overlooked something. Just starting to look at a search on "Nisargadatta Maharaj," I found, for example, in the first page of results,, which showed a page of quotations from this very book in Robert Kastenbaum, Encyclopedia of Adult Development, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1993. Given the prominence of Nisargadatta Maharaj, and that this nominated book seems to be the major book about him (or "by" him"), it would be astonishing if it weren't widely quoted. The nomination was preposterous. --Abd (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources, over 2 years in which to have procured them. Ray Yang (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because, just because. WP:IAR, and the encyclopedia is better with this article than without it, it is that simple. If the article contains unsourced claims, remove them. But most of the article is verifiable, rather simply. I see this article as a subarticle of Nisargadatta Maharaj, he is notable, and we should have more such, not less. Wikidas, please be devoted to the encyclopedia (which means the utility and pleasure it brings to its readers, in the end), not narrow interpretations of guidelines taken as rules.--Abd (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, there is reliable source showing notability.      etc.
 * Comment - admin closing note: Even if the said Nisargadatta Maharaj is notable, is does not seem to be proper to keep a particular book by him as a separate article. Unless there are objections, the book section should be merged into the article itself or deleted. Notability of Nisargadatta Maharaj has nothing to do with the book, that was not even written by him and is just transcripts. There are thousands of books, by really notable people, do all of them need a separate article especially if it was never a subject to third party independent studies or even an academic review? Obviously not. Wikidās ॐ 19:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge is not a ridiculous conclusion for this AfD, but really that should be up to the editors of the main article, and Merge can be proposed and accomplished without an AfD. (It is a variation on "Keep," since the article is not deleted but merely redirected, and that can be undone by any editor.) The present article should be about this book itself, which includes detailed description (which can be sourced from the book itself) and notable comment on it. Notice that, above, with very little effort, I was able to report that I found an entire page of quotations from this book in an "Encyclopedia of Human Development." The book has been noticed in reliable sources. What I don't like about Merge decisions, interpreted as binding, is that the editors of the main article wouldn't have been consulted. What difference does it make, really, if there is one article on the main topic, longer, or two articles, shorter, one being the main topic and the other a subarticle, i.e., specific book description, for a particularly notable publication? This book seems to be, I'm guessing from what little I've seen, the main publication by or about him. ("Not written by him" is an oversimplification. He is the "author" of the words therein, albeit in their original language and verbally. And that is really irrelevant.} No, not "all of them need a separate article." Only those where there is more detail appropriate than is appropriate for a main article, or they, as works, are particularly notable.--Abd (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete No reliable sources. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that Allemandtando was an abusive sock puppet of User:Fredrick day, who has at various times (like yesterday) watched my contributions and intervened with reverts or opposite !votes. He has been indef blocked now, this !vote should be disregarded. --Abd (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Merge Book by itself isn't notable enough, should be merged into Nisargdatta Maharaj. ~ priyanath talk 03:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In this discussion, there have been no reliable sources provided for this article nor any claim to notability. As is, it should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here Ism schism simply repeats, as if it were a new comment, his nomination statement. That's problematic. And there were reliable sources above asserted, arguably showing notability from where the book has been quoted. Participation in this AfD has been low, one Delete !vote was from a sock puppet and possibly not in good faith, and this AfD probably shouldn't be closed as a consensus, unless the matter is very clear to the editor closing. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Over a week of discussion, and there are no agreed upon reliable sources for this article. Most articles need at least 2 reliable sources. It shouldn't take over a week to find them - this is point I was trying to make earlier. I apologise for not being more clear. Personally, I think an article needs 2 reliable sources to back up its claims to notability. It is important to note that these are still lacking after ample time for review. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lacking from where? My guess is that Ism schism means from the article. They are here, above. Sources showing notability are not necessarily appropriate for the article for other reasons. If there are unsourced claims in the article, those should be removed. Sometimes a topic is notable but the reliable sources that show it don't back up specific facts in the article; in that case, such sources may be mentioned in an AfD or in article Talk. I also have a general policy of not working on articles that are under AfD, I should probably resign from Article Rescue. Too many times I've done the work and actually found reliable source, and the article still disappears because there had already been many Delete votes, the closer didn't look at the new sources and it was still marginal and not worth going to DRV, etc., etc. But, here, if this closes as Delete, I'd consider DRV, because it appears that this is, indeed, a notable book.


 * Comment Other users have been noticing that 's bizarrely zealous deletion drive, of which this afd is a part, has a distinctly sectarian bent. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Please - be specific if you are making an accusation against me. I have nominated non notable articles for every sect of Hinduism since I started. This is well documented in my edit history, my documentation on the Hinduism Wikiproject talk page, and other relevant talk pages. Yes, an article you wrote was one of the articles I nominated, Articles for deletion/Mitsu Hadeishi. It is these types of articles that I believe should NOT be on Wikipedia. I am not attacking you as an author, just the non notable articles. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed the possible pattern, and it is a matter of concern, but is not really relevant to the AfD itself. If an editor is abusively nominating, and that is clear, the editor could be sanctioned, but this isn't the place to discuss that. Talk, here, would be okay, but.... better if the editors try to work it out directly, then ask for help if they can't find consensus in that way. There is mediation and user conduct RfC and the whole nine yards of WP:DR. Please, both of you, take this elsewhere. --Abd (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the subject of this discussion should be the article - and whether it is notable and has reliable sources for verification. Personal attacks against me can be taken to other forums. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If I had to be reborn as an American I would choose the state of Missouri as their state slogan is "Show-Me!" This is my expectation for articles. Please, show me how the article is notable and then give me reliable sources to verify this claim to notability. Upon review, I see that there are sources that mention this subject, but none have been shown to give the subject substancial coverage and/or coverage to demonstrate and verify notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment When I want to save an article from deletion for whatever reason, I make changes, add sources, show notability, and then use this AfD space to call attention to the improvements so that other editors might change their opinions. I've had more success that way that I have engaging in intense debate. Tackle articles, not editors. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete non-notable book article, and Merge the contents into the article of the notable author (Nisargadatta Maharaj). Outside the context of the author, his teachings (hence this book) are meaningless to general readers.Yobmod (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As it stands, there is no indication of whether this book is widely read, influential, or important. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- zero evidence the book is notable by itself. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (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.