![]() |
< 5 February | 7 February > |
---|
The result was speedy keep. Nomination was made in error, admitted by the nominator, He meant to nominate something else he says. Speedy keep as no chance of deletion ( non-admin closure) gwickwire talk edits 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
There is already an article on the California Department of Corrections see CDCR TucsonDavidU.S.A. 23:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
He exists, but I can't find the requisite level of RS coverage to confer notability for our purposes. Nor does this blp have any refs or ELs. Could perhaps be speedied, but to be safe I brought it here. Tagged for notability for nearly half a decade. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 23:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The keep camp demostrates the notability while the delete side just say WP:Not notable. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Bridge appears to fail the GNG. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 22:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Declined CSD. Bio about an Indian magazine editor whose claims to notability are association (sources used to assert the notability of the people that are claimed he collaborated with), the creation of a magazine, and for having interviewed an actress. After some research I do not think this person meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Allegations that she had an affair with an actor-politician fall a long way short of WP:BIO. She belongs as at most a passing mention in the article on Arnold Schwarzenegger, where she is currently unmentioned. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete Only notable for one event. Mcewan ( talk) 21:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This article is essentially a list of translations from Swedish to Finnish. Whilst it might be suitable for Swedish and/or Finnish Wikipedia, it is unnecessary in English Wikipedia. If anyone needs to know the Finnish name for a Swedish place, then the interwiki links on the place's article would help. Bazonka ( talk) 21:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article consisting of semi-coherent original research. Seems to be a personal reflection or essay. No indication of notability of this editor's commentary about a stamp. - Mr X 21:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by User:KillerChihuahua under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 11:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This effectively self-sourced biography does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Most of the content is descriptions of the video games he plays. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to 2013 Alabama bunker hostage crisis. The arguments not to redirect were taken into account but redirect simply had stronger support. As for the merge suggestions, there really isn't anything to merge. J04n( talk page) 11:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete and do not redirect (as an improbable redirect): Completely non-notable as victim. My condolences to his family and loved ones, but this article is a blatant (albeit unpaid) obit and nothing more. Quis separabit? 21:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW, before the seven day mark. There is a well established guideline at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which states that high schools are generally presumed as notable if they can be verified through reliable sources. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 03:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school, enrollment of 120. No significant independent coverage. JFH ( talk) 20:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn - I still don't think the sources presented demonstrate notability, but clearly the consensus is against me. SmartSE ( talk) 18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:BASIC. None of the sources given are about the subject, but are instead merely articles he has written. The independent sources that I can find, aren't really the best to use to write a neutral NLP article, since they are about alleged plagiarism or about doing covert PR for the Bahraini government. Even if these sources were suitable, I still don't think they are sufficiently in depth to merit the inclusion of this article. SmartSE ( talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Article is about a hip-hop duo but makes no claims to notability and is basically a discography. Sources are an LA Times blog interview and the band's website. The duo have been active for only a couple of years and I can't see any evidence of success/recognition/reliable coverage online. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk ( talk) 19:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Going through the discussion here, I have discounted the votes from single purpose accounts who, at best, appear to have been recruited for voting in this AFD. Such canvassing skews the numbers and we cannot therefore take them into account unless we are willing to compromise the integrity of the AFD system. Many of the keep votes that are discounted were providing rationales that are irrelevant to inclusion and deletion anyway.
The valid argument remaining on the keep side is Miniapolis, who pointed out the product reviews in the article as relevant sourcing. However, she has not received any further support for his viewpoint, and while product reviews are relevant in an article on the product it is far from clear that they provide a sufficient basis for notability. (Many sorts of products are tested or reviewed in some sort of magazine, and declaring that each of the test subjects can then have an article using that review as a source would allow a much wider range of articles than what appears to be current practice.) Miniapolis' point is valid, but it is not a deal-breaker that mandates deletion, and with the consensus against her, she winds up being a dissenting voice here.
As for the other arguments about the product being mentioned in lyrics, a look through the sources showed that the only one making a point out of it was the company website behind this product. That is insufficient basis for an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Article is a non-notable product and does not contain any sources. Article was declined for speedy deletion due to it being a product. Agree that it does not fit speedy deletion criteria so bringing it here for discussion. Unable to locate any reliable and independent sources to support any claims in the article. Plenty of retail websites selling the product but nothing talking about it. Fails WP:GNG and depth of coverage in reliable sources. MoreLessLEI ( talk) 18:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
*Comment This page has been nominated before, perhaps by the same person. Please see the archived discussion and the result was KEEP.
Decision to Keep Raw (rolling paper)
Put that in your pipe and smoke it (
talk)
16:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 02:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This appears to have escaped into the wild before it was ready. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tastic Film where it was marked as not ready. Seems non notable. No reliable references. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Would it be possible to merge the two articles from the user page and the "wild" I do not really understand how there ended up being two in different places. Also when you say not yet ready just wondering what you mean ? Also I was wondering if there was any way i can delete the user page for Tastic Film and keep the main page as it has really got the Tastic Film logo listed highly on search engines. please get back to me and thanks for the help you have been. James Rush 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet the general notability guideline. Was elected as mayor of Townsville in 2012 and was a failed candidate in an earlier election but there doesn't seem to be much else about her that I could find. She's just one Jenny Hill among many. AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of schools in Wandsworth. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Notability not established and no useful or detailed information here on the school itself Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 14:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
How is this notable? Sources include alexa listing (pretty low) and an archive.org entry for... itself. No coverage in resliable sources is shown, so this fails GNG pretty badly, I'd say. Notability tagged since 2009, time for an axe, I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Tom Harris (mechanical engineer). Redirect to Tom Harris (mechanical engineer); delete/redirect !votes agree article notability isn't assessed and this is a valid search term. Any content that could be merged to the Tom Harris article can be salvaged from the article's history. :) · Salvidrim!· ✉ 07:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was prodded, which I deprodded and added a few sources to, but sources are rather thin in availability and in their depth of coverage, and this topic may not ultimately meet WP:N. Per discussion occurring at the Rescue list, I've nominated this for deletion and hopeful further analysis here regarding available sources about the topic and their degree of coverage; the topic may not ultimately meet the threshold of notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)*Keep As per Beesaman, the notability on this is high. I have added another recent news reference.
Goldfringer (
talk)
02:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
Hurrah - Wiki removed ICSC. Now can we get them to remove "Tom Harris"? I am very insignificant and not worthy of the great and powerful Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.3.55 ( talk) 18:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. The article was speedy deleted per CSD G3 by User:NawlinWiki. ( Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This isn't even an article... it seems to be spam. Scientific Alan 2 (Click here to talk) (What have I done?) (Me) 13:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Haji Baba Sheikh. Redirected — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I can't figure out who this person is. I can't find the sources, and other edits by this article's creator are incomprehensible, see [12] and [13] for examples. Dougweller ( talk) 13:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Prod declined by creator of article. A quick search didn't find anything to suggest a pass of WP:PROF (h-index of 3 or so), nor of WP:AUTHOR (holdings of his books in Worldcat are not significant). Ray Talk 13:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment: Since the category changed from Mathematicians to Technical writers, you should move this discussion in section
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Authors
Cedib (
talk)
12:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
Keep: C.B. might not be an academic notability in terms of Wikipedia, but he surely is a notable author on gambling mathematics. Worldcat returns 10 of his titles in public libraries, many of them university libraries (among them, The Institute for the Study of Gambling, Nevada). I think the article should remain either in category Technical writers or Mathematicians. As counterexamples, see Mathew Hilger and King Yao, who have biographic pages and less exposure and credentials than CB.
Cedib (
talk)
16:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
—
Cedib (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
delte fails WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 12:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. Page appears to have been made to promote a personal business (violation of WP:SOAP). Trut-h-urts man ( T • C) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
I am the creator of this page, and not the owner the production company, nor I am involved the operations of it. It is also not a business, but a non-profit organization. This is my first attempt at writing an article and the help said to write about something I know. I am primarily involved in community level theatre and musical groups. They are notable to those of us who frequent them. Also, Hamilton Theatre Inc. has there own page and is similar to Shooting Star Theatrics My next articles were to be on the Burlington Concert Band (the one in Ontario, not the one who already has a page) and the Dundas Valley Orchestra. Should I not bother? I would cite that grass-roots theatre groups are on par with minor league sports teams. Such as the Fort Erie Meteors. They draw 100-200 per game, [14] the same as the large venue performances of Shooting Star. Several newspaper articles have been written about the company in the Hamilton Spectator, but they predate the articles available on the website. Please comment, or make suggestions for improvement as I'd hate to lose my first page. User:Dannomyte
Here are some other articles from similar organizations. Georgetown Little Theatre McMaster Musical Theatre North Toronto Players Hamilton Theatre Inc. Sock 'n' Buskin Theatre Company Theatre Aurora Windsor Light Music Theatre User:Dannomyte
I am currently researching offline sources to broaden the reference base of this article. There was coverage by the Hamilton Spectator, a newspaper with readership of a couple hundred thousand, around 2009, which predates their online archives. It will likely take me to about Sunday to have this.-- 24.141.197.192 ( talk) 15:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Have added Hamilton Spectator articles. -- Dannomyte ( talk) 13:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn ( talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable dog 'breed' with no mentions in notable secondary sources. Google turns up nothing but scrapes of this page and references from the breed's own site. TKK bark ! 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Utterly Wp:NN performer. A few g-hits but appears to be a solo performer at weddings and part of a group that was once broadcast to 300,000 people. Toddst1 ( talk) 01:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn ( talk) 12:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability criteria. Dwaipayan ( talk) 00:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Ray Talk 23:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Survived WP:PROD but article still fails WP:SCHOLAR WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR Alfy32 ( talk) 02:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
unref blp; tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn ( talk) 11:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Thai nationality law. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 04:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:N; not notable Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and Azarenka–Sharapova rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've had deletions already for Agassi–Rafter rivalry, Davenport–V. Williams rivalry, Davenport–Hingis rivalry, Becker–Sampras rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and Azarenka–S. Williams rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've had deletions already for Agassi–Rafter rivalry, Davenport–V. Williams rivalry, Davenport–Hingis rivalry, Becker–Sampras rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:NBASKETBALL Ushau97 talk contribs 09:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 09:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Created page with incorrect Title spelling (fixed); please delete this one Nihil7 ( talk) 08:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Deprodded since some sources supported it as a structure in Greek racing. However, only one source supports it in the geometric sense. I can find no other sources supporting this as a defined shape, and I see no way to make it more than a dicdef even if it were about the Greek racing structure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 08:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I previously put a WP:PROD notice on this with the rationale "No evidence that this new software meets the notability criteria." The Prod was removed by an IP. The article text indicates that the official release is likely to be in May this year and the nearest to a WP:RS reference is a review on "I Love Free Software", so at best this is WP:TOOSOON for an article of demonstrated notability. AllyD ( talk) 08:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. I am concerned about the discussed neutrality issues and the general tendency of the discussions surrounding these works, but I am closing, not supervoting, and I see consensus to keep. :) · Salvidrim!· ✉ 07:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This is another set of self-published books by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. While there are a several peer-reviewed papers that cite this work, I have not found any reviews or scholarly work that discusses these books and would thus establish notability. I've also been searching the stacks at UC Berkeley, also to no avail. The best independent source on Sarkar's thought, Inayatullah's "Understanding Sarkar" does not list these volumes in its bibliography. I don't believe it will be possible to establish notability for this article moving forward and thus I recommend deletion. Garamond Lethe 06:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm listing this AfD because I highly doubt that this restaraunt has any coverage in reliable sources and I also think that its notability is quite questionable. The only source that the article contains is to the the restaraunt itself. Interlude 65 ( Push to talk) 04:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Der yck C. 17:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Law Firm. Mateinsixtynine ( talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
KEEP: This user nominated the page for speedy deletion, which was not approved with the explanation, "The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance." This second attempt to delete the page has no significant explanation as to why they decided to delete the page. I argue for the page to be kept based on the following:
This page includes references from significant sources, including CNN, Detroit News, a book published by Oxford University Press, Detroit Free Press, and The Oakland Press--five very reputable sources, showing that the firm and its lawyers have been cited in the news on multiple occasions. The firm is featured in some of the references in great detail, no not all. The Detroit News and Detroit Legal News articles focus solely on the firm, and other articles focus solely on cases run by the law firm. 14 of the 17 references are to third-party references, with the only non third-party references used to establish basic facts, such as the names of lawyers mentioned in newspaper articles. Many of these sources pass the "depth of coverage" requirement, and the independence of the sources do show that "people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it" on several occassions. I'm not claiming that this is White and Case here, but the number of references available do give this law firm a place on Wikipedia in the form of a law firm stub. The article is written in neutral, encyclopeadic style, and there are several items of note to mention on the page. Jeremy112233 ( talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 07:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
She certainly exists, but I can't find sufficient independent RS coverage to conclude that she is notable. Tagged for notability for over a year. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 04:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Notability. The only cited reference is a copy of the book, and several searches of different Google search engines produced no results except the book or places to purchase it. It has not won any major book awards, and was not a bestseller. LM103 ( talk) 03:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Notability demonstrated by reliable sources. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD exists) Rationale given in PROD was: Non-notable software, no references to support the "one of the oldest" claim. Only referenced is self-published by the author. Illia Connell ( talk) 03:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 07:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:COMPANY. reddogsix ( talk) 03:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Sketchy references in the article and lack of references point to failed WP:BIO. reddogsix ( talk) 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete No results on google I could see, referenced sources also do not turn up on google. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 17:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to 2012 Burgas bus bombing. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 04:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm horrified by this article, not because of any views that might be expressed over the bus bombing, but the fact that some 90% of this article is a quotefarm of soundbites, indignant comments, empty rhetoric and "mee toos" from overly self-important politicians from countries without any connection at all to the incident. The summary section of the main bus bombing article could be expanded a little, with content of the 'Bulgaria' section of this, and then this could be deleted without loss of meaningful content. Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 12:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The best citation I'm able to find is the one included in the article: a footnote in a historical work on genocide attesting to the existence of this collection. What other little commentary exists is not independent, and based on this I don't see any way to establish notability. The above can fit comfortably within the Sarkar biographical article.
As always: while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. Garamond Lethe 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
*Redirect to
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar as nom.
The book is the modified version of the dissertation prepared under the supervision of Dr. A. K. Mohanty, P. G. Department of Philosophy, Utkal University and submitted to the Utkal University for the Degree of M. Phil. in Philosophy. The book brings into focus the nature of the Mystical. Besides presenting a panoramic glimpse of the world of Prabhat Samgiit, it undertakes to unearth the mystical underpinnings and outpourings therein.
List of references | ||
---|---|---|
Publisher | Title, URL | Comment |
Example University | Example | |
Example | Example | |
Example | Example |
Duffin, K. S. (1987). Prabhat Samgiit, Songs of the Dawn: A Study of Music in Modern Indian Society (Doctoral dissertation, Hollins College). -- Universal Life ( talk) 23:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I absolutely agree with all of this, but I don't think you appreciate how I've been putting it into practice.
We have two WP:SPA editors here who are editing untethered to any policy. Both have persistent issues with WP:IDHT and there are ongoing problems of WP:COI, personal attacks, spamming AfD with cut'n'paste diatribes, etc. All of this behavior is against policy. However, as you've pointed out above, we don't have to enforce those policies when doing so doesn't advance the larger goal. And so, at least for the moment, I've let that behavior slide.
That leaves the problem of how to deal with the WP:SOAPBOX that's been constructed. In my best judgement, deleting the obviously non-notable Sarkar articles in batches would get us to the point where we can bring the remaining articles up to compliance. Because of this surrounding context, I am not going to !vote for keeping this article unless notability is obvious and uncontroversial. We don't need another yet another marginal Sarkar-related article. If we do demonstrate notability, great! Then we'll have a solid article that will survive regardless of what else happens with the Sarkarverse, and I've love to use this article as a lever to improve the others.
So, to sum up: I don't mind bending the rules on WP:CIVILITY, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:COI in order to make a better encyclopedia. I don't think in this particular case bending the rules on those as well as WP:NOTABILITY accomplishes that goal.
PS: I may have some good news for you in ~24 hours.
Garamond Lethe 22:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Global release of Prabhatgeet soon By Parnab Mukherjee. Calcutta, Dec. 15: Anandamargis are going hi-tech. They ahve decided to launch their new range of Prabhatsangeet audio cassettes, recorded with state-of-art technology globally. The latest Prabhatsangeet album wich will have an international release in January, feature[s] Kavita Krishnamurthy and is currently being remixed at London. Informed sources revealed that the Anandamargis are tying up with National Cassettes to market Prahatsangeet albums all over the state.
Prabhatsangeet is the name given to the genre of songs written and composed by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar also known as Sri Anandamurthiji. Prabhatsangeet has also found a place in the curriculum of the Nikhil Bharat Sangeet Samity. A board have been formed to regulate the albums and a detailed syllabus have been drawn. Music personalities like V. Balsara, Ramkumar Chattopadhyay and Madhuri Chattopadhyay Indrani Sen are involved with the genre.
Priyashibananda Abdhut said: "The songs of Anandamurthiji has gained popularity. We ahve released 16 albums among the devotees and for private circulation. 1,00 [sic] training schools have been established all over the state.
As we seem to be coming to the end of a lengthy AfD debate, I believe that it is time to start summarizing the evidence presented for deletion or retention of the Prabhat Samgiita article. Additional evidence or comments are, of course, still welcome; but I respectfully suggest that they be placed above this portion of the page. -- Abhidevananda ( talk) 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
(see above) Garamond Lethe 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Notable, independent musicians who have performed Prabhat Samgiita or commented favorably on it | ||
---|---|---|
Musician | Performance or appreciation | Comment |
Ramkumar Chattopadhyay | Performance and appreciation | Also released six cassettes of Prabhat Samgiita (later re-released as CDs) |
Jyoshna La Trobe | Performance and appreciation | Also released one independent CD containing Prabhat Samgiita songs and will soon release an independent film with two Prabhat Samgiita songs in its soundtrack |
Rashid Khan | Performance and appreciation | |
Archana Udupa | Performance and appreciation | |
R. K. Srikantan | Appreciation | |
Shzr Ee Tan | Performance | |
Haimanti Sukla | Performance | |
Manoj Kumar | Performance | |
Ashwini Bhide-Deshpande | Performance | |
Kavita Krishnamurthy | Performance | |
Seshulatha Kosuru | Performance | |
Vithal Rao | Performance | |
V. Balsara | Performance | |
Sushmita Goswami | Performance | |
Shruti Sadolikar Katkar | Performance |
Has the nomination for deletion been substantiated? | |
---|---|
Statement in the nomination | What the AfD debate revealed |
The best citation I'm able to find is the one included in the article: a footnote in a historical work on genocide attesting to the existence of this collection. | However, we have seen that there are many, many other citations. There are at least thirteen books dedicated to Prabhat Samgiita (including at least one book that appears to be independently written and independently published); scholarly works (master's theses and also a brief mention in a Sohail Inayatullah book, Understanding Sarkar: The Indian Episteme Macrohistory and Transformative Knowledge (Brill, 2002, ISBN 9004121935)); some films (including one upcoming and entirely independent film); and a huge number of newspaper reports (mostly detailing presentations organized by RAWA). |
What other little commentary exists is not independent... | Clearly, the word "little" is erroneous in that clause. And the implied assertion that, for example, none of the many newspaper articles are independent is nothing short of ludicrous. |
... and based on this I don't see any way to establish notability. | If the nominator's research accurately reflected all of the information that is available, then maybe it would have been difficult to establish notability. But, as demonstrated over the course of this debate, the nominator's research was highly deficient. |
The above can fit comfortably within the Sarkar biographical article. | Perhaps the original article, which was just a stub, could have fit comfortably into the Sarkar biographical article. But it was never intended that the Prabhat Samgiita stub would remain so incomplete. Certainly, the greatly expanded article now being written by Universal Life will not "fit comfortably" inside another article. Moreover, from the AfD debate, it seems reasonable that at least one additional, dedicated article about Prabhat Samgiita be created simply to list RAWA performances of Prabhat Samgiita (per the suggestion of the nominator himself). And, considering Wikipedia precedent, yet another dedicated article could be created simply to list all 5,018 songs within the collection of songs known as "Prabhat Samgiita", referencing the two websites [47] [48] dedicated to Prabhat Samgiita for music and lyrics and the many books that discuss only the lyrics of the songs (see Talk:Prabhat Samgiita). |
As always: while this collection is certainly an artifact of a 'political or religious movement' I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. | Clearly, from all of the evidence presented above, Prabhat Samgiita is not just an "artifact". Equally clearly, from all of the evidence above, Prabhat Samgiita certainly has influenced Ananda Marga. It would be absurd to imagine otherwise. Given the amount of evidence available - much of it easily found by a Google search - it is somewhat surprising that the nominator was not able to find any independent sources attesting to that influence. As seen in the AfD debate, many newspaper articles have reported independent sources remarking not merely on the influence of Prabhat Samgiita in respect to Ananda Marga but indeed on the entire field of music and even potentially on all humankind. Regarding the words at the beginning of the nominator's sentence, "as always", those words merely reflect the nominator's predisposition to reject any achievement of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. |
Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements... | The claim by the nominator that "Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements" stands in stark contrast to what other, presumably more knowledgeable persons have stated. For example, Johan Galtung, who - unlike the nominator - has no doubt taken the trouble to inspect some of Sarkar's works, stated: "Sarkar is so much deeper and more imaginative than most. He is an intellectual giant of our times." Former President of India, Giani Zail Singh, stated "P. R. Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India." Leonardo Boff stated: "The Indian master P. R. Sarkar, who did more than thirty years of studies and practical concrete work with the poor of India, is very important for all who yearn for a liberation which starts from economics and opens to a totality of personal and social human existence." I could list other testimonials, but I believe the point is made. The nominator was only expressing a gratuitous opinion. |
...and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. | From all of the discussion in this debate, I think it is clear that (1) there has been a lot more academic study of Sarkar's works than the nominator acknowledges (2) that there may be reasons other than the nominator's opinion that Sarkar was just a "minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements" that might have impacted the amount of "academic study" that has been carried out to date. |
*Speedy keep: the sources on the article are more than enough.-- Anta An ( talk) 22:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)— Anta An ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 23:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Der yck C. 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Minor firm of no particular notability; appears on various dodgy lists, but even there seems to fail notability, since those do not constitute the requisite substantial coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 07:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The first sentence in the article gives the reason for deletion--it is supposed to mean internet marketing in all its aspects, which is nonsense, the internet includes more than clouds. There's nothing to merge, because everything is covered in other articles, and there's no need for a redirect, because it is not a suitable synonym for anything. Probably material could be found using the phrase, but it doesn't describe anything real; we're not a directory of attempted coinages for computer-related subjects. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Search on Google News found several other people with the same name. "Andy Berman" + "Psych" turned up only name-drops (e.g. "Saladin K. Patterson and Andy Berman are co-executive producers and writers"), and nothing of substance — no significant coverage whatsoever, no biographical information. Searching for "Andy Berman" + "Invader Zim" gave only one result. Similar searches on Google Books gave only books that reprint Wikipedia articles, one name-drop in connection to Psych, and a bunch of false positives.
The only source in the article was an Invader Zim wiki, which is not a reliable source. Although at first glance he seems to pass WP:NACTOR by having two significant roles (voice actor and writer), they are less important than they appear. Although he did voice a semi-important character in a cartoon, it was one that barely lasted past its first season — and as someone who knows a thing or two about Invader Zim, the title character and GIR are far more popular than Dib. Although he did write 20 episodes of Psych (out of a possible 95 so far), no one seems to have paid him any attention for it — none of his episodes won awards, nor do they seem notable enough for their own pages. Although he did write for Freddie, he wrote only three episodes, and two were co-writes. All of his other roles are limited to one episode, or background characters without names. The utter lack of reliable sources for him makes it pretty clear that he does not meet WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If Wikisource wants the material it is available at the link Mkdw pointed out. As the entire content is public domain I cannot see that GFDL or CC licenses and history preservation are all that relevant, but any admin may undelete the page for purposes of transwiki if needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability under any criteria that I can locate, and no sources at all. Coretheapple ( talk) 02:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of schools in Nelson, New Zealand. WP:SNOW, before the seven day mark. There is a well established guideline at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which states that elementary schools are generally redirected into their respective school district because they are non-notable, and in this case, there is already a consensus to do so. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 17:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Primary school. One sentence article, with ibox. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill coverage and it certainly does exist. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order Epeefleche ( talk) 01:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged with the issue of notability since July 2009. It does not appear to meet notability guidelines for creative professionals. iComputer SaysNo 13:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 07:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable DJ. No reliable sources. Orphaned for about 18 months. RNealK ( talk) 00:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO, notability demonstrated by reliable sources. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This artist does not meet WP:MUSICBIO Thegoosler ( talk) 19:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Only references provided are primary ones including a press release. And a Yahoo News article which appears to be based on a press release. Google news search on the title brings up zero hits, same with a book search. RadioFan ( talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Several websites have information on this company like those that are listed on the references page; however this article just needs more information and some more research on. If this company exists, as it obviously does, I think it only needs more research. I vote keep it. JoJaEpp ( talk) 02:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Reliable sources have been provided (
non-admin closure) --
Patchy1
REF THIS BLP
02:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
From what I can tell from the website given this looks like an enthusiast who has built a telescope out of their garage. Reliable third party sources are required to establish notability, and they are not present in the article. The article also appears to be an autobiography. --
Patchy1
REF THIS BLP
08:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
REF THIS BLP
16:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replyThe result was redirect to Neohumanism. This is a long-winded debate, and closure is far overdue. Having gone through the discussion, I find that the delete side have made a good argument against the notability of the book when they point out that the book itself has not been the subject of many reviews. While the philosophical ideas in the book have been deemed notable enough for the article on neohumanism, it is well-established Wikipedia practice that the notability of one topic does not automatically make related topics notable (often shortened to "notability is not inherited"). As such, the rationale that "neohumanism is rated mid-importance, therefore this book that introduced neohumanism must be notable too" is fallacious. There have been numerous assertions in the discussion that the book is notable or important, but very little evidence of the sources needed to pass the notability guidelines. All the arguments of notability support the non-controversial viewpoint that the theory is notable.
I will again ask that people participating in AFDs avoid prefacing their comments with "Note to closing admin" because everything in the AFD debate is a note to the closing admin. There is no need to highlight your note in particular. In this case the AFD debate contained a long argument against the deletion process, calling it "censorship". To this I will answer that arguing that topics are non-notable is not censorship, and regarding the other points in that comment I refer to the section of the ATA essay WP:EVERYTHING.
However, there is not all that much support for outright deletion either, and at least two of the participants who advocated deletion have alternatively called a redirect and/or a merge as an option. Other editors have supported merging as well. They argue that the book is mentioned in the neohumanism article, and that is a meritorious enough argument.
The current article contains an infobox while most of the body text is a listing of the chapters. I cannot really see much here worth merging, and will therefore simply make this a redirect, but the article history will not be deleted so people can merge parts of the content as they see fit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Yet another self-published book by the prolific Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. No discussion of the book in the peer-reviewed literature (and only quoted four times), no reviews, and no notability. As I mentioned in another AfD, while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. Garamond Lethe 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
*Delete as nom.
*Keep: for the reasons above.--
Cornelius383 (
talk)
14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
As demonstrated by the table below, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism greatly exceeds Wikipedia requirements for notability. Only one out of the five criteria listed at WP:NBOOK must be satisfied. The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism satisfies not just one but three of the criteria.
WP:NBOOK Criteria Satisfied by The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism | ||
---|---|---|
Criterion | Compliance | References |
3. 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. | As stated earlier, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism is the landmark book that comprehensively sets out Sarkar's philosophy of neohumanism, rated by WikiProject Philosophy at "mid-importance on the project's importance scale". Naturally, this book is also referenced numerous times in the article on neohumanism. As the neohumanism of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar embodies the universal outlook to be cultivated by all members of Ananda Marga, the mission founded by Sarkar, this book has undeniably made a significant contribution to that significant religious movement. | Neohumanism, Ananda Marga, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar |
4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. | As evidenced in the preceding discussion, this book is indeed the subject of instruction at multiple schools. It is the very source for the name of and philosophy behind the education system adhered to by all of the many hundreds of Ananda Marga schools around the world. | Signed statements by the in-charges of two prestigious schools, one in Laos and the other in London, as well as links to various websites connected with Neohumanist Education [61] [62] [63]. Additional evidence may be provided, but this already meets the criterion for "multiple" schools, and there does not appear to be any dispute on the number of Ananda Marga schools that maintain such a course of study. |
5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. | This argument was recently advanced by a Wikipedia administrator, J04n in the failed AfD nomination on Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2). Though the book was different, clearly this argument has equal impact in respect to other books. When J04n's assertion was questioned by the AfD nominator on that book as well as this book, I seconded the position of J04n with the following remarks: "I can understand Garamond's doubt as to the historical importance of Sarkar, based purely on what he can find in Western academic circles. However, the life of Sarkar was extraordinary - for example, he underwent seven years in jail on trumped up charges, with more than five years and four months fasting in protest of being poisoned in jail - and during that same time, his organization spread like wildfire around the world. Furthermore, Sarkar's contributions reflect progressive novelty in more areas of individual and collective life than any other historical figure that I am aware of. Philosophy, socioeconomic theory, spiritual practices, music, dance, cosmology, ontology, science, history, ethics, and much, much more - Sarkar covered them all. One need not agree with everything that Sarkar said to appreciate such an achievement. One simply needs to understand that these achievements were not mere dabbling. At the very same time as Sarkar was giving his 5,018 songs of Prabhat Samgiita, he also gave 26 original volumes of books on philology ( Shabdha Cayanika) and spent many hours in organizational meetings regarding service work around the world - meetings that took place four times each day (seven days a week). So, yes, I think that Sarkar's works meet criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT, and I am amazed that anyone would concern themselves so much to seek the deletion of such articles. After all, this is a virtual encyclopedia. We are not killing trees or eating up a great amount of any other precious resource by providing accurate and neutral articles on a subject that may be of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Okay, these articles might not accumulate the greatest number of hits on Wikipedia. But so what? Wikipedia still provides a service to the public by making this information available, especially when any of these books are not yet cited in Garamond's "peer-reviewed literature". Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT and WP:IAR are tailor-made for a case like this." I stand firmly by those remarks. In the words of J04n, "The historical significance of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar renders all of his works notable." | Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2) |
There are a number of well rehearsed arguments that have been made here for merging or deleting the article (and can also been seen in arguments concerning other books within the "sarkarverse" such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell where a consensus was found for merging the article to neohumanism. It must be added that a consensus is not necessarily one that everyone agrees with. The arguments can be summarised as follows, no doubt I will have missed some, so please do not read this as detracting in any way from the very strong arguments that have already been made in favour of merge or delete.
01:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This article has no sources other than the company website and has been tagged as unreferenced for the last year. There can be no guarantee that the information will be kept updated as changes are frequent. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and people are better getting the most up to date information from the company site. The article fails WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Charles ( talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by User:Basalisk under criteria A7, G11, and G12. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 23:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Seemingly non-notable WP:ORG. Mostly primary sources and a WP:BEFORE check through Google Books and News reveal no hits. Web hits come back as youtube and facebook. Mkdw talk 00:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
![]() |
< 5 February | 7 February > |
---|
The result was speedy keep. Nomination was made in error, admitted by the nominator, He meant to nominate something else he says. Speedy keep as no chance of deletion ( non-admin closure) gwickwire talk edits 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
There is already an article on the California Department of Corrections see CDCR TucsonDavidU.S.A. 23:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
He exists, but I can't find the requisite level of RS coverage to confer notability for our purposes. Nor does this blp have any refs or ELs. Could perhaps be speedied, but to be safe I brought it here. Tagged for notability for nearly half a decade. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 23:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The keep camp demostrates the notability while the delete side just say WP:Not notable. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Bridge appears to fail the GNG. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 22:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Declined CSD. Bio about an Indian magazine editor whose claims to notability are association (sources used to assert the notability of the people that are claimed he collaborated with), the creation of a magazine, and for having interviewed an actress. After some research I do not think this person meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Allegations that she had an affair with an actor-politician fall a long way short of WP:BIO. She belongs as at most a passing mention in the article on Arnold Schwarzenegger, where she is currently unmentioned. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete Only notable for one event. Mcewan ( talk) 21:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This article is essentially a list of translations from Swedish to Finnish. Whilst it might be suitable for Swedish and/or Finnish Wikipedia, it is unnecessary in English Wikipedia. If anyone needs to know the Finnish name for a Swedish place, then the interwiki links on the place's article would help. Bazonka ( talk) 21:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article consisting of semi-coherent original research. Seems to be a personal reflection or essay. No indication of notability of this editor's commentary about a stamp. - Mr X 21:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by User:KillerChihuahua under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 11:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This effectively self-sourced biography does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Most of the content is descriptions of the video games he plays. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to 2013 Alabama bunker hostage crisis. The arguments not to redirect were taken into account but redirect simply had stronger support. As for the merge suggestions, there really isn't anything to merge. J04n( talk page) 11:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete and do not redirect (as an improbable redirect): Completely non-notable as victim. My condolences to his family and loved ones, but this article is a blatant (albeit unpaid) obit and nothing more. Quis separabit? 21:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW, before the seven day mark. There is a well established guideline at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which states that high schools are generally presumed as notable if they can be verified through reliable sources. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 03:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school, enrollment of 120. No significant independent coverage. JFH ( talk) 20:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn - I still don't think the sources presented demonstrate notability, but clearly the consensus is against me. SmartSE ( talk) 18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:BASIC. None of the sources given are about the subject, but are instead merely articles he has written. The independent sources that I can find, aren't really the best to use to write a neutral NLP article, since they are about alleged plagiarism or about doing covert PR for the Bahraini government. Even if these sources were suitable, I still don't think they are sufficiently in depth to merit the inclusion of this article. SmartSE ( talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Article is about a hip-hop duo but makes no claims to notability and is basically a discography. Sources are an LA Times blog interview and the band's website. The duo have been active for only a couple of years and I can't see any evidence of success/recognition/reliable coverage online. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk ( talk) 19:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Going through the discussion here, I have discounted the votes from single purpose accounts who, at best, appear to have been recruited for voting in this AFD. Such canvassing skews the numbers and we cannot therefore take them into account unless we are willing to compromise the integrity of the AFD system. Many of the keep votes that are discounted were providing rationales that are irrelevant to inclusion and deletion anyway.
The valid argument remaining on the keep side is Miniapolis, who pointed out the product reviews in the article as relevant sourcing. However, she has not received any further support for his viewpoint, and while product reviews are relevant in an article on the product it is far from clear that they provide a sufficient basis for notability. (Many sorts of products are tested or reviewed in some sort of magazine, and declaring that each of the test subjects can then have an article using that review as a source would allow a much wider range of articles than what appears to be current practice.) Miniapolis' point is valid, but it is not a deal-breaker that mandates deletion, and with the consensus against her, she winds up being a dissenting voice here.
As for the other arguments about the product being mentioned in lyrics, a look through the sources showed that the only one making a point out of it was the company website behind this product. That is insufficient basis for an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Article is a non-notable product and does not contain any sources. Article was declined for speedy deletion due to it being a product. Agree that it does not fit speedy deletion criteria so bringing it here for discussion. Unable to locate any reliable and independent sources to support any claims in the article. Plenty of retail websites selling the product but nothing talking about it. Fails WP:GNG and depth of coverage in reliable sources. MoreLessLEI ( talk) 18:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
*Comment This page has been nominated before, perhaps by the same person. Please see the archived discussion and the result was KEEP.
Decision to Keep Raw (rolling paper)
Put that in your pipe and smoke it (
talk)
16:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 02:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This appears to have escaped into the wild before it was ready. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tastic Film where it was marked as not ready. Seems non notable. No reliable references. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Would it be possible to merge the two articles from the user page and the "wild" I do not really understand how there ended up being two in different places. Also when you say not yet ready just wondering what you mean ? Also I was wondering if there was any way i can delete the user page for Tastic Film and keep the main page as it has really got the Tastic Film logo listed highly on search engines. please get back to me and thanks for the help you have been. James Rush 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet the general notability guideline. Was elected as mayor of Townsville in 2012 and was a failed candidate in an earlier election but there doesn't seem to be much else about her that I could find. She's just one Jenny Hill among many. AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of schools in Wandsworth. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Notability not established and no useful or detailed information here on the school itself Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 14:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
How is this notable? Sources include alexa listing (pretty low) and an archive.org entry for... itself. No coverage in resliable sources is shown, so this fails GNG pretty badly, I'd say. Notability tagged since 2009, time for an axe, I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Tom Harris (mechanical engineer). Redirect to Tom Harris (mechanical engineer); delete/redirect !votes agree article notability isn't assessed and this is a valid search term. Any content that could be merged to the Tom Harris article can be salvaged from the article's history. :) · Salvidrim!· ✉ 07:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was prodded, which I deprodded and added a few sources to, but sources are rather thin in availability and in their depth of coverage, and this topic may not ultimately meet WP:N. Per discussion occurring at the Rescue list, I've nominated this for deletion and hopeful further analysis here regarding available sources about the topic and their degree of coverage; the topic may not ultimately meet the threshold of notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)*Keep As per Beesaman, the notability on this is high. I have added another recent news reference.
Goldfringer (
talk)
02:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
Hurrah - Wiki removed ICSC. Now can we get them to remove "Tom Harris"? I am very insignificant and not worthy of the great and powerful Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.3.55 ( talk) 18:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. The article was speedy deleted per CSD G3 by User:NawlinWiki. ( Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This isn't even an article... it seems to be spam. Scientific Alan 2 (Click here to talk) (What have I done?) (Me) 13:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Haji Baba Sheikh. Redirected — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I can't figure out who this person is. I can't find the sources, and other edits by this article's creator are incomprehensible, see [12] and [13] for examples. Dougweller ( talk) 13:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Prod declined by creator of article. A quick search didn't find anything to suggest a pass of WP:PROF (h-index of 3 or so), nor of WP:AUTHOR (holdings of his books in Worldcat are not significant). Ray Talk 13:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment: Since the category changed from Mathematicians to Technical writers, you should move this discussion in section
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Authors
Cedib (
talk)
12:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
Keep: C.B. might not be an academic notability in terms of Wikipedia, but he surely is a notable author on gambling mathematics. Worldcat returns 10 of his titles in public libraries, many of them university libraries (among them, The Institute for the Study of Gambling, Nevada). I think the article should remain either in category Technical writers or Mathematicians. As counterexamples, see Mathew Hilger and King Yao, who have biographic pages and less exposure and credentials than CB.
Cedib (
talk)
16:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
—
Cedib (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
delte fails WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 12:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. Page appears to have been made to promote a personal business (violation of WP:SOAP). Trut-h-urts man ( T • C) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
I am the creator of this page, and not the owner the production company, nor I am involved the operations of it. It is also not a business, but a non-profit organization. This is my first attempt at writing an article and the help said to write about something I know. I am primarily involved in community level theatre and musical groups. They are notable to those of us who frequent them. Also, Hamilton Theatre Inc. has there own page and is similar to Shooting Star Theatrics My next articles were to be on the Burlington Concert Band (the one in Ontario, not the one who already has a page) and the Dundas Valley Orchestra. Should I not bother? I would cite that grass-roots theatre groups are on par with minor league sports teams. Such as the Fort Erie Meteors. They draw 100-200 per game, [14] the same as the large venue performances of Shooting Star. Several newspaper articles have been written about the company in the Hamilton Spectator, but they predate the articles available on the website. Please comment, or make suggestions for improvement as I'd hate to lose my first page. User:Dannomyte
Here are some other articles from similar organizations. Georgetown Little Theatre McMaster Musical Theatre North Toronto Players Hamilton Theatre Inc. Sock 'n' Buskin Theatre Company Theatre Aurora Windsor Light Music Theatre User:Dannomyte
I am currently researching offline sources to broaden the reference base of this article. There was coverage by the Hamilton Spectator, a newspaper with readership of a couple hundred thousand, around 2009, which predates their online archives. It will likely take me to about Sunday to have this.-- 24.141.197.192 ( talk) 15:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Have added Hamilton Spectator articles. -- Dannomyte ( talk) 13:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn ( talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable dog 'breed' with no mentions in notable secondary sources. Google turns up nothing but scrapes of this page and references from the breed's own site. TKK bark ! 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Utterly Wp:NN performer. A few g-hits but appears to be a solo performer at weddings and part of a group that was once broadcast to 300,000 people. Toddst1 ( talk) 01:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn ( talk) 12:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability criteria. Dwaipayan ( talk) 00:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Ray Talk 23:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Survived WP:PROD but article still fails WP:SCHOLAR WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR Alfy32 ( talk) 02:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
unref blp; tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn ( talk) 11:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Thai nationality law. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 04:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:N; not notable Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and Azarenka–Sharapova rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've had deletions already for Agassi–Rafter rivalry, Davenport–V. Williams rivalry, Davenport–Hingis rivalry, Becker–Sampras rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and Azarenka–S. Williams rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've had deletions already for Agassi–Rafter rivalry, Davenport–V. Williams rivalry, Davenport–Hingis rivalry, Becker–Sampras rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
per WP:NBASKETBALL Ushau97 talk contribs 09:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 09:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Created page with incorrect Title spelling (fixed); please delete this one Nihil7 ( talk) 08:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Deprodded since some sources supported it as a structure in Greek racing. However, only one source supports it in the geometric sense. I can find no other sources supporting this as a defined shape, and I see no way to make it more than a dicdef even if it were about the Greek racing structure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 08:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I previously put a WP:PROD notice on this with the rationale "No evidence that this new software meets the notability criteria." The Prod was removed by an IP. The article text indicates that the official release is likely to be in May this year and the nearest to a WP:RS reference is a review on "I Love Free Software", so at best this is WP:TOOSOON for an article of demonstrated notability. AllyD ( talk) 08:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. I am concerned about the discussed neutrality issues and the general tendency of the discussions surrounding these works, but I am closing, not supervoting, and I see consensus to keep. :) · Salvidrim!· ✉ 07:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This is another set of self-published books by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. While there are a several peer-reviewed papers that cite this work, I have not found any reviews or scholarly work that discusses these books and would thus establish notability. I've also been searching the stacks at UC Berkeley, also to no avail. The best independent source on Sarkar's thought, Inayatullah's "Understanding Sarkar" does not list these volumes in its bibliography. I don't believe it will be possible to establish notability for this article moving forward and thus I recommend deletion. Garamond Lethe 06:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm listing this AfD because I highly doubt that this restaraunt has any coverage in reliable sources and I also think that its notability is quite questionable. The only source that the article contains is to the the restaraunt itself. Interlude 65 ( Push to talk) 04:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Der yck C. 17:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Law Firm. Mateinsixtynine ( talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
KEEP: This user nominated the page for speedy deletion, which was not approved with the explanation, "The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance." This second attempt to delete the page has no significant explanation as to why they decided to delete the page. I argue for the page to be kept based on the following:
This page includes references from significant sources, including CNN, Detroit News, a book published by Oxford University Press, Detroit Free Press, and The Oakland Press--five very reputable sources, showing that the firm and its lawyers have been cited in the news on multiple occasions. The firm is featured in some of the references in great detail, no not all. The Detroit News and Detroit Legal News articles focus solely on the firm, and other articles focus solely on cases run by the law firm. 14 of the 17 references are to third-party references, with the only non third-party references used to establish basic facts, such as the names of lawyers mentioned in newspaper articles. Many of these sources pass the "depth of coverage" requirement, and the independence of the sources do show that "people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it" on several occassions. I'm not claiming that this is White and Case here, but the number of references available do give this law firm a place on Wikipedia in the form of a law firm stub. The article is written in neutral, encyclopeadic style, and there are several items of note to mention on the page. Jeremy112233 ( talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 07:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
She certainly exists, but I can't find sufficient independent RS coverage to conclude that she is notable. Tagged for notability for over a year. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche ( talk) 04:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Notability. The only cited reference is a copy of the book, and several searches of different Google search engines produced no results except the book or places to purchase it. It has not won any major book awards, and was not a bestseller. LM103 ( talk) 03:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Notability demonstrated by reliable sources. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD exists) Rationale given in PROD was: Non-notable software, no references to support the "one of the oldest" claim. Only referenced is self-published by the author. Illia Connell ( talk) 03:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 07:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:COMPANY. reddogsix ( talk) 03:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Sketchy references in the article and lack of references point to failed WP:BIO. reddogsix ( talk) 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete No results on google I could see, referenced sources also do not turn up on google. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 17:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to 2012 Burgas bus bombing. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 04:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm horrified by this article, not because of any views that might be expressed over the bus bombing, but the fact that some 90% of this article is a quotefarm of soundbites, indignant comments, empty rhetoric and "mee toos" from overly self-important politicians from countries without any connection at all to the incident. The summary section of the main bus bombing article could be expanded a little, with content of the 'Bulgaria' section of this, and then this could be deleted without loss of meaningful content. Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 12:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The best citation I'm able to find is the one included in the article: a footnote in a historical work on genocide attesting to the existence of this collection. What other little commentary exists is not independent, and based on this I don't see any way to establish notability. The above can fit comfortably within the Sarkar biographical article.
As always: while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. Garamond Lethe 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
*Redirect to
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar as nom.
The book is the modified version of the dissertation prepared under the supervision of Dr. A. K. Mohanty, P. G. Department of Philosophy, Utkal University and submitted to the Utkal University for the Degree of M. Phil. in Philosophy. The book brings into focus the nature of the Mystical. Besides presenting a panoramic glimpse of the world of Prabhat Samgiit, it undertakes to unearth the mystical underpinnings and outpourings therein.
List of references | ||
---|---|---|
Publisher | Title, URL | Comment |
Example University | Example | |
Example | Example | |
Example | Example |
Duffin, K. S. (1987). Prabhat Samgiit, Songs of the Dawn: A Study of Music in Modern Indian Society (Doctoral dissertation, Hollins College). -- Universal Life ( talk) 23:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I absolutely agree with all of this, but I don't think you appreciate how I've been putting it into practice.
We have two WP:SPA editors here who are editing untethered to any policy. Both have persistent issues with WP:IDHT and there are ongoing problems of WP:COI, personal attacks, spamming AfD with cut'n'paste diatribes, etc. All of this behavior is against policy. However, as you've pointed out above, we don't have to enforce those policies when doing so doesn't advance the larger goal. And so, at least for the moment, I've let that behavior slide.
That leaves the problem of how to deal with the WP:SOAPBOX that's been constructed. In my best judgement, deleting the obviously non-notable Sarkar articles in batches would get us to the point where we can bring the remaining articles up to compliance. Because of this surrounding context, I am not going to !vote for keeping this article unless notability is obvious and uncontroversial. We don't need another yet another marginal Sarkar-related article. If we do demonstrate notability, great! Then we'll have a solid article that will survive regardless of what else happens with the Sarkarverse, and I've love to use this article as a lever to improve the others.
So, to sum up: I don't mind bending the rules on WP:CIVILITY, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:COI in order to make a better encyclopedia. I don't think in this particular case bending the rules on those as well as WP:NOTABILITY accomplishes that goal.
PS: I may have some good news for you in ~24 hours.
Garamond Lethe 22:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Global release of Prabhatgeet soon By Parnab Mukherjee. Calcutta, Dec. 15: Anandamargis are going hi-tech. They ahve decided to launch their new range of Prabhatsangeet audio cassettes, recorded with state-of-art technology globally. The latest Prabhatsangeet album wich will have an international release in January, feature[s] Kavita Krishnamurthy and is currently being remixed at London. Informed sources revealed that the Anandamargis are tying up with National Cassettes to market Prahatsangeet albums all over the state.
Prabhatsangeet is the name given to the genre of songs written and composed by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar also known as Sri Anandamurthiji. Prabhatsangeet has also found a place in the curriculum of the Nikhil Bharat Sangeet Samity. A board have been formed to regulate the albums and a detailed syllabus have been drawn. Music personalities like V. Balsara, Ramkumar Chattopadhyay and Madhuri Chattopadhyay Indrani Sen are involved with the genre.
Priyashibananda Abdhut said: "The songs of Anandamurthiji has gained popularity. We ahve released 16 albums among the devotees and for private circulation. 1,00 [sic] training schools have been established all over the state.
As we seem to be coming to the end of a lengthy AfD debate, I believe that it is time to start summarizing the evidence presented for deletion or retention of the Prabhat Samgiita article. Additional evidence or comments are, of course, still welcome; but I respectfully suggest that they be placed above this portion of the page. -- Abhidevananda ( talk) 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
(see above) Garamond Lethe 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Notable, independent musicians who have performed Prabhat Samgiita or commented favorably on it | ||
---|---|---|
Musician | Performance or appreciation | Comment |
Ramkumar Chattopadhyay | Performance and appreciation | Also released six cassettes of Prabhat Samgiita (later re-released as CDs) |
Jyoshna La Trobe | Performance and appreciation | Also released one independent CD containing Prabhat Samgiita songs and will soon release an independent film with two Prabhat Samgiita songs in its soundtrack |
Rashid Khan | Performance and appreciation | |
Archana Udupa | Performance and appreciation | |
R. K. Srikantan | Appreciation | |
Shzr Ee Tan | Performance | |
Haimanti Sukla | Performance | |
Manoj Kumar | Performance | |
Ashwini Bhide-Deshpande | Performance | |
Kavita Krishnamurthy | Performance | |
Seshulatha Kosuru | Performance | |
Vithal Rao | Performance | |
V. Balsara | Performance | |
Sushmita Goswami | Performance | |
Shruti Sadolikar Katkar | Performance |
Has the nomination for deletion been substantiated? | |
---|---|
Statement in the nomination | What the AfD debate revealed |
The best citation I'm able to find is the one included in the article: a footnote in a historical work on genocide attesting to the existence of this collection. | However, we have seen that there are many, many other citations. There are at least thirteen books dedicated to Prabhat Samgiita (including at least one book that appears to be independently written and independently published); scholarly works (master's theses and also a brief mention in a Sohail Inayatullah book, Understanding Sarkar: The Indian Episteme Macrohistory and Transformative Knowledge (Brill, 2002, ISBN 9004121935)); some films (including one upcoming and entirely independent film); and a huge number of newspaper reports (mostly detailing presentations organized by RAWA). |
What other little commentary exists is not independent... | Clearly, the word "little" is erroneous in that clause. And the implied assertion that, for example, none of the many newspaper articles are independent is nothing short of ludicrous. |
... and based on this I don't see any way to establish notability. | If the nominator's research accurately reflected all of the information that is available, then maybe it would have been difficult to establish notability. But, as demonstrated over the course of this debate, the nominator's research was highly deficient. |
The above can fit comfortably within the Sarkar biographical article. | Perhaps the original article, which was just a stub, could have fit comfortably into the Sarkar biographical article. But it was never intended that the Prabhat Samgiita stub would remain so incomplete. Certainly, the greatly expanded article now being written by Universal Life will not "fit comfortably" inside another article. Moreover, from the AfD debate, it seems reasonable that at least one additional, dedicated article about Prabhat Samgiita be created simply to list RAWA performances of Prabhat Samgiita (per the suggestion of the nominator himself). And, considering Wikipedia precedent, yet another dedicated article could be created simply to list all 5,018 songs within the collection of songs known as "Prabhat Samgiita", referencing the two websites [47] [48] dedicated to Prabhat Samgiita for music and lyrics and the many books that discuss only the lyrics of the songs (see Talk:Prabhat Samgiita). |
As always: while this collection is certainly an artifact of a 'political or religious movement' I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. | Clearly, from all of the evidence presented above, Prabhat Samgiita is not just an "artifact". Equally clearly, from all of the evidence above, Prabhat Samgiita certainly has influenced Ananda Marga. It would be absurd to imagine otherwise. Given the amount of evidence available - much of it easily found by a Google search - it is somewhat surprising that the nominator was not able to find any independent sources attesting to that influence. As seen in the AfD debate, many newspaper articles have reported independent sources remarking not merely on the influence of Prabhat Samgiita in respect to Ananda Marga but indeed on the entire field of music and even potentially on all humankind. Regarding the words at the beginning of the nominator's sentence, "as always", those words merely reflect the nominator's predisposition to reject any achievement of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. |
Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements... | The claim by the nominator that "Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements" stands in stark contrast to what other, presumably more knowledgeable persons have stated. For example, Johan Galtung, who - unlike the nominator - has no doubt taken the trouble to inspect some of Sarkar's works, stated: "Sarkar is so much deeper and more imaginative than most. He is an intellectual giant of our times." Former President of India, Giani Zail Singh, stated "P. R. Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India." Leonardo Boff stated: "The Indian master P. R. Sarkar, who did more than thirty years of studies and practical concrete work with the poor of India, is very important for all who yearn for a liberation which starts from economics and opens to a totality of personal and social human existence." I could list other testimonials, but I believe the point is made. The nominator was only expressing a gratuitous opinion. |
...and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. | From all of the discussion in this debate, I think it is clear that (1) there has been a lot more academic study of Sarkar's works than the nominator acknowledges (2) that there may be reasons other than the nominator's opinion that Sarkar was just a "minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements" that might have impacted the amount of "academic study" that has been carried out to date. |
*Speedy keep: the sources on the article are more than enough.-- Anta An ( talk) 22:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)— Anta An ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 23:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Der yck C. 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Minor firm of no particular notability; appears on various dodgy lists, but even there seems to fail notability, since those do not constitute the requisite substantial coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 07:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The first sentence in the article gives the reason for deletion--it is supposed to mean internet marketing in all its aspects, which is nonsense, the internet includes more than clouds. There's nothing to merge, because everything is covered in other articles, and there's no need for a redirect, because it is not a suitable synonym for anything. Probably material could be found using the phrase, but it doesn't describe anything real; we're not a directory of attempted coinages for computer-related subjects. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Search on Google News found several other people with the same name. "Andy Berman" + "Psych" turned up only name-drops (e.g. "Saladin K. Patterson and Andy Berman are co-executive producers and writers"), and nothing of substance — no significant coverage whatsoever, no biographical information. Searching for "Andy Berman" + "Invader Zim" gave only one result. Similar searches on Google Books gave only books that reprint Wikipedia articles, one name-drop in connection to Psych, and a bunch of false positives.
The only source in the article was an Invader Zim wiki, which is not a reliable source. Although at first glance he seems to pass WP:NACTOR by having two significant roles (voice actor and writer), they are less important than they appear. Although he did voice a semi-important character in a cartoon, it was one that barely lasted past its first season — and as someone who knows a thing or two about Invader Zim, the title character and GIR are far more popular than Dib. Although he did write 20 episodes of Psych (out of a possible 95 so far), no one seems to have paid him any attention for it — none of his episodes won awards, nor do they seem notable enough for their own pages. Although he did write for Freddie, he wrote only three episodes, and two were co-writes. All of his other roles are limited to one episode, or background characters without names. The utter lack of reliable sources for him makes it pretty clear that he does not meet WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If Wikisource wants the material it is available at the link Mkdw pointed out. As the entire content is public domain I cannot see that GFDL or CC licenses and history preservation are all that relevant, but any admin may undelete the page for purposes of transwiki if needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability under any criteria that I can locate, and no sources at all. Coretheapple ( talk) 02:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of schools in Nelson, New Zealand. WP:SNOW, before the seven day mark. There is a well established guideline at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which states that elementary schools are generally redirected into their respective school district because they are non-notable, and in this case, there is already a consensus to do so. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. ( non-admin closure) TBrandley ( what's up) 17:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Primary school. One sentence article, with ibox. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill coverage and it certainly does exist. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order Epeefleche ( talk) 01:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged with the issue of notability since July 2009. It does not appear to meet notability guidelines for creative professionals. iComputer SaysNo 13:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 07:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable DJ. No reliable sources. Orphaned for about 18 months. RNealK ( talk) 00:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO, notability demonstrated by reliable sources. ( non-admin closure) LlamaAl ( talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This artist does not meet WP:MUSICBIO Thegoosler ( talk) 19:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Only references provided are primary ones including a press release. And a Yahoo News article which appears to be based on a press release. Google news search on the title brings up zero hits, same with a book search. RadioFan ( talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Several websites have information on this company like those that are listed on the references page; however this article just needs more information and some more research on. If this company exists, as it obviously does, I think it only needs more research. I vote keep it. JoJaEpp ( talk) 02:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Reliable sources have been provided (
non-admin closure) --
Patchy1
REF THIS BLP
02:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
From what I can tell from the website given this looks like an enthusiast who has built a telescope out of their garage. Reliable third party sources are required to establish notability, and they are not present in the article. The article also appears to be an autobiography. --
Patchy1
REF THIS BLP
08:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
REF THIS BLP
16:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replyThe result was redirect to Neohumanism. This is a long-winded debate, and closure is far overdue. Having gone through the discussion, I find that the delete side have made a good argument against the notability of the book when they point out that the book itself has not been the subject of many reviews. While the philosophical ideas in the book have been deemed notable enough for the article on neohumanism, it is well-established Wikipedia practice that the notability of one topic does not automatically make related topics notable (often shortened to "notability is not inherited"). As such, the rationale that "neohumanism is rated mid-importance, therefore this book that introduced neohumanism must be notable too" is fallacious. There have been numerous assertions in the discussion that the book is notable or important, but very little evidence of the sources needed to pass the notability guidelines. All the arguments of notability support the non-controversial viewpoint that the theory is notable.
I will again ask that people participating in AFDs avoid prefacing their comments with "Note to closing admin" because everything in the AFD debate is a note to the closing admin. There is no need to highlight your note in particular. In this case the AFD debate contained a long argument against the deletion process, calling it "censorship". To this I will answer that arguing that topics are non-notable is not censorship, and regarding the other points in that comment I refer to the section of the ATA essay WP:EVERYTHING.
However, there is not all that much support for outright deletion either, and at least two of the participants who advocated deletion have alternatively called a redirect and/or a merge as an option. Other editors have supported merging as well. They argue that the book is mentioned in the neohumanism article, and that is a meritorious enough argument.
The current article contains an infobox while most of the body text is a listing of the chapters. I cannot really see much here worth merging, and will therefore simply make this a redirect, but the article history will not be deleted so people can merge parts of the content as they see fit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Yet another self-published book by the prolific Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. No discussion of the book in the peer-reviewed literature (and only quoted four times), no reviews, and no notability. As I mentioned in another AfD, while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. Garamond Lethe 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
*Delete as nom.
*Keep: for the reasons above.--
Cornelius383 (
talk)
14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
reply
As demonstrated by the table below, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism greatly exceeds Wikipedia requirements for notability. Only one out of the five criteria listed at WP:NBOOK must be satisfied. The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism satisfies not just one but three of the criteria.
WP:NBOOK Criteria Satisfied by The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism | ||
---|---|---|
Criterion | Compliance | References |
3. 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. | As stated earlier, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism is the landmark book that comprehensively sets out Sarkar's philosophy of neohumanism, rated by WikiProject Philosophy at "mid-importance on the project's importance scale". Naturally, this book is also referenced numerous times in the article on neohumanism. As the neohumanism of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar embodies the universal outlook to be cultivated by all members of Ananda Marga, the mission founded by Sarkar, this book has undeniably made a significant contribution to that significant religious movement. | Neohumanism, Ananda Marga, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar |
4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. | As evidenced in the preceding discussion, this book is indeed the subject of instruction at multiple schools. It is the very source for the name of and philosophy behind the education system adhered to by all of the many hundreds of Ananda Marga schools around the world. | Signed statements by the in-charges of two prestigious schools, one in Laos and the other in London, as well as links to various websites connected with Neohumanist Education [61] [62] [63]. Additional evidence may be provided, but this already meets the criterion for "multiple" schools, and there does not appear to be any dispute on the number of Ananda Marga schools that maintain such a course of study. |
5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. | This argument was recently advanced by a Wikipedia administrator, J04n in the failed AfD nomination on Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2). Though the book was different, clearly this argument has equal impact in respect to other books. When J04n's assertion was questioned by the AfD nominator on that book as well as this book, I seconded the position of J04n with the following remarks: "I can understand Garamond's doubt as to the historical importance of Sarkar, based purely on what he can find in Western academic circles. However, the life of Sarkar was extraordinary - for example, he underwent seven years in jail on trumped up charges, with more than five years and four months fasting in protest of being poisoned in jail - and during that same time, his organization spread like wildfire around the world. Furthermore, Sarkar's contributions reflect progressive novelty in more areas of individual and collective life than any other historical figure that I am aware of. Philosophy, socioeconomic theory, spiritual practices, music, dance, cosmology, ontology, science, history, ethics, and much, much more - Sarkar covered them all. One need not agree with everything that Sarkar said to appreciate such an achievement. One simply needs to understand that these achievements were not mere dabbling. At the very same time as Sarkar was giving his 5,018 songs of Prabhat Samgiita, he also gave 26 original volumes of books on philology ( Shabdha Cayanika) and spent many hours in organizational meetings regarding service work around the world - meetings that took place four times each day (seven days a week). So, yes, I think that Sarkar's works meet criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT, and I am amazed that anyone would concern themselves so much to seek the deletion of such articles. After all, this is a virtual encyclopedia. We are not killing trees or eating up a great amount of any other precious resource by providing accurate and neutral articles on a subject that may be of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Okay, these articles might not accumulate the greatest number of hits on Wikipedia. But so what? Wikipedia still provides a service to the public by making this information available, especially when any of these books are not yet cited in Garamond's "peer-reviewed literature". Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT and WP:IAR are tailor-made for a case like this." I stand firmly by those remarks. In the words of J04n, "The historical significance of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar renders all of his works notable." | Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2) |
There are a number of well rehearsed arguments that have been made here for merging or deleting the article (and can also been seen in arguments concerning other books within the "sarkarverse" such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell where a consensus was found for merging the article to neohumanism. It must be added that a consensus is not necessarily one that everyone agrees with. The arguments can be summarised as follows, no doubt I will have missed some, so please do not read this as detracting in any way from the very strong arguments that have already been made in favour of merge or delete.
01:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This article has no sources other than the company website and has been tagged as unreferenced for the last year. There can be no guarantee that the information will be kept updated as changes are frequent. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and people are better getting the most up to date information from the company site. The article fails WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Charles ( talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by User:Basalisk under criteria A7, G11, and G12. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 23:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Seemingly non-notable WP:ORG. Mostly primary sources and a WP:BEFORE check through Google Books and News reveal no hits. Web hits come back as youtube and facebook. Mkdw talk 00:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply