Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems of the Day


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Problems of the Day

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail the GNG; issues are similar to other books by Sarkar. There are some ghits from Sarkar followers, Ananda marga websites trying to sell the book &c - but minimal independent coverage. bobrayner (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Despite Bob's claim, this is not what I see when I make a Google search. First, this book was previously published under the name "Problem of the Day", as is mentioned in the article. The book has been in print continuously for over 50 years, and it is one of the earliest books by the author on the subject of PROUT. As such the book is referenced numerous times in the article on PROUT. The book's notability is derived by virtue of the fact that it is from a historically significant author, and it is frequently referenced by secondary sources, perhaps most notably Sohail Inayatullah. Furthermore, the book is sold on many websites besides Ananda Marga websites. Leaving aside the many websites (mostly not Ananda Marga) that sell or rent the book, here are some sample google hits that come up when searching for "'Problem of the Day' Sarkar":


 * here


 * here


 * here


 * here


 * here


 * here


 * here


 * here


 * here

--Abhidevananda (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I recognise that this book is mentioned repeatedly in our other articles on PROUT. This is because we have a walled garden of articles on the sarkarverse, linking to each other and dependent on primary sources. It doesn't mean that the various books and concepts mentioned over and over again in this walled garden are actually notable in the real world. The GNG is the best measure of that. bobrayner (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: Please pay attention to the false accusation made by Bob Rayner above. He alleges that the article on PROUT that I mentioned is part of a walled garden. A cursory look at just the first few paragraphs of that article reveals around 10 links to articles on Wikipedia that are well outside of what Bob refers to as the Sarkarverse (interesting term, poor use). Probably there are well over 100 such links in the entire article. Moreover, from the WhatLinksHere for the PROUT article, I see a very impressive list of articles that link to it (again, most of them well outside of the Sarkarverse). As such, that article can by no means be tagged as WP:WG. This false allegation, along with some loose and disparaging words in the AfD for this book (Problems of the Day)... very similar to the words that have been used by this same nominator for several other AfDs in respect to articles created by the same editor... quite possibly has something to do with why the article creator has not yet responded to this particular AfD or, indeed, to any message to him for days. User:Cornelius383 appears to have been an enthusiastic new editor on Wikipedia, contributing to many articles - a good number of them well outside the Sarkarverse. It would be a pity for Wikipedia to lose such a constructive participant due to any form of systematic and coordinated harassment. Creating a new article requires hours of work - often many hours. Nominating an article for deletion only takes a few seconds. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unable to find any coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Fails Notability (books). Location (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Location, could you please be more specific. You claim that this book "fails Notability (books)". But as I read WP:NB, the situation is quite the contrary. You also make the same comment in your own, concurrent AfD at Articles_for_deletion/Ananda_Marga_Elementary_Philosophy, but you do not back it up there either. Yes, Bob Rayner supports your AfD in the same way as you support his AfD, which only suggests that the two of you are working in tandem (also seemingly apparent on several other Sarkar-related pages). Perhaps such 'coordination' - if that is indeed what it is - is valid on Wikipedia. I cannot say. But the question remains: Why does this book fail WP:NB? Do you consider all of the sources who directly or indirectly indicate that this book has "made a significant contribution to a significant religious movement" to be unreliable? If so, why is that? You also claim that you cannot "find any coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject". So do you consider all of the links given by me above to be completely useless? For example, I note that your proposed draft of an article on PROUT makes frequent reference to Sohail Inayatullah. Presumably, you consider him to be reliable, even if he is not entirely independent (a subjective and relative concept at best). So, pardon me, Location, but your briefly stated position here strikes me as inconsistent. Please be so kind as to clarify it for me and for anyone else who might be similarly confused. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be more specific: I looked for coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject necessary to meet the criteria set forth at WP:NBOOK and could find none. And, yes, I considered all of the sources above insufficient to pass the notability guidelines at WP:NBOOK that were developed by consensus. The last one in your list, for example, is a copy of the Wikipedia article. If you have other issues with my editing, there are other forums better to address your concerns. Location (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Location, the last one on the list should not have been there. And the Facebook link was perhaps a bit flippant. But some of those other links seemed to be pretty serious to me. For example, there are several links to one source that you have explicitly described as "reliable", "secondary", and "independent". Personally, I might disagree with you on some of those counts, but that was your expressed opinion just a couple days ago here. Indeed, the very book you yourself cited there also contains a reference to "Problem of the Day" on Page 215. But, hey, you have a right to your opinion, even if the rationale is vague to me. Apologies if you feel that my words were or are not adequately polite. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete no coverage in notable sources, except one google book link which shows that it was cited in Illustrated Weekly of India, once most notable weekly English magazine published from India. ISBN number noted in article page seems to be wrong.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch about the ISBN number, Dibyendu. It seems to be a mistake proliferated on many websites. This is also somewhat embarrassing for me, as I believe that I have also included that ISBN number in some citations. Just goes to show the danger of relying too much on secondary sources. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The ISBN that appears in the printed book is: 81-7252-019-0. So it looks like the 0 before the 19 was inadvertently omitted. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What it really means is that, ideally, our rules should be formed in such a fashion that an ordinary helpful kind thoughtful person doesn't really even need to know the rules. You just get to work, do something fun, and nobody hassles you as long as you are being thoughtful and kind. What we want to avoid is a situation in which people are blasted for petty offenses with rules that they could never have guessed at in the first place. Yes we have style standards for example, but if someone doesn't adhere, we just fix it and leave them a friendly note, rather than yelling at them for breaking a rule.
 * 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 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 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) 01:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have spammed dozens of articles with text about Sarkar's "vast literary heritage" &c. You should stop doing that. bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I've to illustrate few points:
 * The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
 * It has been used as a reference in the writings of Sohail Inayatullah.
 * There are many articles published in highly-reputable newspapers in India about the book. It's less easy to access them as not all of them are online and/or not all of them have been written in English.
 * There are no firm rules in WP. There are policies and guidelines that are meant to work in cooperation and not in isolation from one to each other. Citing weekly one guideline to delete an article goes contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Citing from Jimmy Wales,
 * Now read the above comment of Cornelius. I second that. Do you see where we have arrived? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Universal Life (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Let's take a look at the google hits listed by Abhidevananda.


 * P.R. Sarkar's Vision Of The Future. Two quotes sourced to the book.  No discussion of the book.


 * Sarkar's Spiritual Dialectics One quote sourced to the book.  No discussion of the book.


 * Farming the Future: Sarkar's Unique Contributions to Agriculture  One quote sourced to the book.  No discussion of the book.


 * Women@Internet: Creating New Cultures in Cyberspace One quote sourced to the book. No discussion of the book.


 * A wordpress blog It's a blog that has a list of books. No discussion of the book.


 * Deconstructing The Information Era One quote sourced to the book. No discussion of the book.


 * Baba’nın Toplumsal Konuşmalarından (11) Four quotes sourced to the book. No discussion of the book.


 * Facebook (oh, come on.)


 * medbib Looks like a copy of an old version of the article.


 * Based on the article and the links above, in my opinion this book does not meet GNG. Garamond Lethe  01:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I could not find any reliable sources that actually says something about this this book as opposed to quoting from it or listing it. This means that Wikipedia cannot say anything about the book either. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability by coverage in independent sourcing. Yobol (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The book does not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This book cannot be considered to be notable simply because it has been used as a reference in works of Sohail Inayatullah. The sources need to address the topic directly and in detail for it to meet the general notability guideline. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  03:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment per WP:SIGCOV. The book does find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. There are plenty and entirely independent Indian newspapers and magazines that devote passages from this book as a column or entire page. Some more time is needed to find them as they are usually in Hindi, rarely in English and Bengali. --Universal Life (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Printing large passages from the book doesn't establish notability. If reviews are found the article can be recreated then.  Garamond Lethe  14:07, 28 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.