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. The only policy-based arguments are made by those favoring deletion, and these arguments are fairly strong. A lack of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the article's subject is essential to meet WP:GNG. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idea and Ideology[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. The only independent source used to establish notability is also self-published. A redirect to Sarkar's biographical page would be fine, but I think deletion without redirection is warranted. Garamond Lethe 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~per~~ as nom. Garamond Lethe 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware it was possible to nominate and vote ---- _nonsense ferret 21:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought the convention at RfA was followed here. I'm happy to revert or strike, whichever you feel is appropriate. Garamond Lethe 22:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen AfDs with and without. It's no biggie. The closing admin will surely see your signature... bobrayner (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thanks! Garamond Lethe 22:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; lacks independent sources, seems to be part of the same walled garden as other recent articles brought to AfD... bobrayner (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... but why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's and Bob's compadres at Fringe/n would cast a Delete vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Wikipedia admin will come here after seven days and simply tally the votes, ignoring the fact that there is no consensus, and decide to either delete or redirect. So there's no need to dedicate much energy putting lipstick on this pig. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a head count, neither does it have to be unanimous. Closing administrators are experienced enough to determine a rough consensus in an AfD based upon policy, common sense and strength of the argument. Besides, this discussion is listed on five different noticeboards, not just FTN. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 12:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, CorrectKnowledge... another compadre and a familiar pseudonym... would that the CK pseudonym were so! Just for the record, I never said that consensus necessarily means unanimity (although it is commonly interpreted as such). However, in respect to Wikipedia, WP:CON makes clear that consensus does need to be more broad than just a unanimity among a "limited group of editors", for example, a group of editors presenting only a particular perspective (involved with an article, not involved with an article, conservative, liberal, mainstream, new-age, fringe, anti-fringe, or whatever). Nowhere at WP:CON do we find the concept of consensus diluted to your (CorrectKnowledge's) "rough consensus". In effect, asserting a "rough consensus" is just a specious way of avoiding an admission that there is "no consensus". According to WP:CON, no consensus is not adequate justification for removing an article. Quite the contrary. "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before claiming that I had originated the concept of "rough consensus" and that it was a "specious way of avoiding an admission that there is no consensus", maybe you should have gone through Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CK, did I assert that you had originated any concept? If so, I apologize for overrating your creativity. But the way you use this concept is indeed a "specious way of avoiding an admission that there is no consensus". The Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus that you cite only mentions one case in which a "rough consensus" may be accepted. That case is "bad faith". It amplifies that case with the following example: "If a rough consensus holds that the nomination was made in bad faith, the page may be speedily kept." So I am sorry to tell you this, CK, but you seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...only mentions one case in which a "rough consensus" may be accepted" really? That is just an example. The section also mentions how strength of argument should be looked at and arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact etc. can be discounted. That is pretty much what I said and that is exactly what happened in all the previous AfDs where you !voted keep. Crying no consensus with absolutely no reasonable arguments will not help in an Afd, but if you want to have a go at it, suit yourself. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.

Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.

My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mention Sarkar's "vast literary production" &c on very many pages. It might be helpful to turn that down a little. bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another typical example of respect for WP users/editors signed by Bobrayner.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. The book does not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Lack of coverage in independent reliable sources means this fails WP:NBOOK. I also have heavy concerns regarding WP:SOAPBOX given the context of many similarly-created articles. Location (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to very poor sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.