Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namah Shivaya Shantaya


 * 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   redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.  MBisanz  talk 00:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Namah Shivaya Shantaya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no reason to think this book is specially notable--inclusion as an item in the reference list on the author would be enough. The contents of the articles show how little there is to say: a contents list of the book, and an overdetailed publication history  DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; seems to fail the GNG, once we strip out the stuff which is actually about the author there's just a list of contents and editions; the article is just part of a broader pattern of promotional editing. bobrayner (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment: I will try to insert more secondary sources on it to show its aderence to the WP notability criteria.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 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) 21:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment: I've just added 2 secondary sources: 1)a legal source mentioning the book of this article as a spiritual treatise/fundamental text of the Ananda Marga spiritual movement. This point out the adherence of the article at WP criteria notability point (3); 2)an academical source showing the historical relevance of the author. This to point out the adherence of the article at WP criteria notability point (5). I hope that is sufficient. Otherwise I can also add other secondary sources. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The legal source appears to be a court document filed by Ananda Marga, an organization founded by the author. This is not considered to be reliable secondary source independent of the subject. The second source, from what you've excerpted, appears to make a statement about the author but not about the book. Location (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment: thanks Location for your comment. 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. 2)Of course the second source I've added on the article makes a statement about the author. This is to show the adherence of this 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").--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway I've just added another academic secondary source. I hope to dissolve all doubts.--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that a document in scribd.com is a reliable source leave alone an academic source? Even if it were, on which page does it discuss the book? In this edit you have just added an unreliable source on a tangential topic. It doesn't help your cause in anyway. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  20:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV. This article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  20:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment: I have added: 1)a legal document showing Namah Shivaya Shantaya as a part of the spiritual texts of the Ananda Marga spiritual movement, 2)an academic source showing the historical importance of the author (Giani Zail Singh, seventh president of India has said about Sarkar: "Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India. (Inayatullah, 2002), 3)an academic research centered on the author that quotes this book (Chien Hui Liu, pp. 3 & 20). I think it's sufficent to show the adherence of the article to point 3) and 5) of WP notability criteria.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: And here we go again. Is it Bigots Week at Wikipedia? This book treats a subject of immense interest to the millions of followers of Shiva (Shaivites) in the world. Unlike many other treatments of the subject, this book presents Shiva as a historical figure, justifying that assertion and analyzing Shiva's role as the "father of human civilization". I don't know if it makes the book notable or not, but at least one movie has been created that is based on this book (see here). --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. I've just added this further secondary source in the article.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A youtube video based on the book is hardly a secondary source. bobrayner (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Added: IMBD, ilcinema.org, mandy.com.--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable sources, either. Please read WP:RS. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The book is a spiritual (or religious or sacred as you prefer) text of a religious or spiritual group as quoted in the legal source, somebody have even created a movie on it: point (3) of WP notability criteria. We have the academic source that quote Giani Zail Singh, seventh president of India that has said about Sarkar: "Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India. This to show the importance of the author: point (5) of WP notability criteria. I think that its sufficient.--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cornelius, to what are you referring when you say "point (5) of WP notability criteria"? Gtwfan52 (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. LK (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete User:Cornelius383 has been going out of his way to show that the author of this book is notable.  Without even addressing that, the notability of the author has exactly 0 to do with the notability of the book.  Even if the court case were on point, which it isn't, as a primary source it says nothing about notability; either of the author or the book. Gtwfan52 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ananda Marga? I do not see any serious discussion as an independent work, but it is referred to as one of Sarkar's works in several places that discuss the movement. I could also support deletion or a different target, as I don't see the independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: What was the title in its original language? If it was originally published in say, Hindi, then we'd probably get more hits if we searched under the original title. So far I'm not seeing a lot. I know that a lot of books in India tend to not get a lot of coverage even when they're very popular, but this doesn't mean that they aren't held to the same standards of sourcing and notability as a pulp novel from America would.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Barring sources in Hindi, I just wasn't able to find anything to show that this book has really accomplished everything that the article states it does. I'm fully aware that books aren't heavily covered in India and that only 10% of news coverage for any given subject never makes it onto the Internet, but that doesn't mean that this book gets to skip the same rules of notability that every other book has to pass. That the book was written by a notable person and covers an obviously notable subject matter (Shiva) does not extend notability automatically to the book. Very few authors are so notable that any of their books gain notability automatically and the thing about that rule of WP:NBOOK is that it's understood that if the author is that notable, that the book would have sources focusing on it and pulling out the "notable author" card wouldn't be necessary. As far as the movie rule goes, having a movie adaptation does not automatically make it pass. The film itself must be notable and I'm unable to find anything about the film that isn't a primary source or from a source that Wikipedia would consider reliable. It doesn't seem to have gotten any actual coverage, not even coverage to say that it showed at Cannes. Even then I can't really find anything official for this and even if it did show, it didn't seem to have been one of the big, fancy "official selections". There were about 1,000 selections for Cannes in 2009 alone, so merely showing during that time isn't enough to show notability. The type of film that would give notability would be something along the lines of 99 Francs at the very least. As far as it being part of a religious text, you'd have to show that it was notable. No, it doesn't have to be as widely covered as the Bible or the Vedas, but it does require more coverage than "this is totally notable". You'd have to show coverage that indicates that it's an important book, which I was unable to find. There are various unusable sources, but nothing that would indicate that it passes notability guidelines. Really it all boils down to reliable sourcing and there just wasn't anything out there to show that this book was as notable as it would need to be to pass notability guidelines. That's the long and short of it. Unless there are sources in another language, my vote will be to redirect to the article for Sarkar.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor's note: 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 recentely wrote on WP and that have been proposed for deletion by BobRainer. Have we to prefer an encyclopaedia representing the various aspects of human knowledge or have we to continuosly propose for deletion all that we don't like/agree? It's very easy to delete an article but it's more difficoult to build one, 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 deletion rather than in the more difficoult task of articles' creation and improvement? I hope you all will understand if I express here my strong complaint but I don't really even know where to write it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Voting "delete" isn't as easily done as you claim. When people do proper research, it can take some of us anywhere from half an hour to a few hours or days to come to a delete vote. It's sometimes just as much work to research a delete vote as to create an article. I know that I spent quite a bit of time searching before finally commenting here and I know I'm not the only one. In the end it doesn't matter what amount of time is spent coming to a decision. If an article subject is ultimately not notable, the amount of time put into it is irrelevant. It's frustrating to see articles that you spent a lot of time on get nominated for deletion, but all articles are subject to notability guidelines regardless of how much time you, I, or anyone else put into creating them. I'm saying this as someone who has personally had to go back and vote "delete" on articles that I'd previously helped work on, as well as redirect articles that didn't pass notability guidelines. I didn't like it, but it happens. If you want then a copy of this can be moved to your userspace ala WP:USERFY, but be aware that moving it back into the mainspace will only result in it getting deleted again if notability is not proven. All notability must be proven via reliable sources, which is ultimately what the argument against this book stems from. Other than your claims in this article, we can't find where this text is nearly as important as you say it is.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:27, 26 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.