Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 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]

The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism

The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. GaramondLethe 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nom.

As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion - no need to also "vote".--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't believe that there is anything unusual or problematic in having a separate Wikipedia article about the landmark book for a new philosophical theory that has been rated as "Mid-importance" on the Philosophy portal project's importance scale. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was speaking English. I haven't yet figured out what language Bob Rayner speaks. Let me know, Bob, and I will try to translate for you. And, by the way, Bob, the book that sets out for the first time a new and notable philosophy is hardly an apt example of inheritance. But, hey, even if this were an apt example of inheritance, had you actually read the very reference that you dogmatically asserted as support for your position, you would have seen the following statement: "Three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances." So there is no rule on Wikipedia that absolutely rules out notability based on inheritance as you perhaps wrongly imagine. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Landmark books" get reviewed. This didn't. If you dig up a review in an independent, reliable source I'll cheerfully withdraw the nomination for deletion. GaramondLethe 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garamond, I would agree that landmark books do generally get reviewed... at least in some form or another. And, in this respect, "Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" is no exception. But where I disagree is with your unfounded segue from landmark books getting reviewed to the assumption that only a review by an "independent source" (whatever that subjective concept means) is a valid review to establish a "landmark" quality. It would be naive to assume that reviews of books published and sold in-house (as is the policy for all of Sarkar's books) will be as common or as seemingly "independent" as reviews of books published through commercial publishing houses. So, for example, we read Dr. Marcus Bussey writing on Page iv of the introduction to Neohumanist Educational Futures: "As Sohail Inayatullah has acknowledged the sources and inspiration for this book, I would like to offer three credits of a different nature. The first is to Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar (1921-1990) who first developed the idea of neohumanism articulated in this text. His first discourses on neohumanism as a general reframing of the social were given in 1982..." Those 1982 discourses that Dr. Bussey refers to were published as the book, "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". Are Marcus Bussey and Sohail Inayatullah reliable sources by Wikipedia standards? Absolutely. Does Marcus Bussey confirm that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" is a landmark book? Clearly, he does. So then all we have to worry about are the trifling questions as to whether Bussey's remarks constitute a "book review" and whether he is "independent". I submit that those are not critical issues under the aforementioned circumstances. But, given our earlier communication, I do not expect that you will concede this point... or, indeed, any point that I have made. Should that be so, let the record reflect that between us there is no consensus.--Abhidevananda (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An allusion to an unnamed book in a single paragraph of the acknowledgements section isn't a review of that unnamed book. As an aside, the book[The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism] isn't listed in worldcat, either. GaramondLethe 17:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gasp: "the book isn't listed in worldcat". Then maybe the book that everyone is talking about here doesn't even exist! To be serious for just a single sentence, this type of remark by you, Garamond, tends to expose the absurdity of a one-eyed over-reliance on secondary sources by Wikipedia (or by some Wikipedians). In any event - and returning to my usual, more lighthearted demeanor - Garamond, will you ever grasp the message about spelling that I tried to convey to you at another one of your frivolous AfD nominations, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prabhat_Samgiita? Have a look here on WorldCat. Hmmm... I think I'm starting to understand the real reason why your four academic papers, mentioned at yet another one of your frivolous AfD nominations here, were not deemed notable by Wikipedia. You might be a secondary source. At a stretch, you might even be considered independent. But your words are really not very reliable. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see The liberation of intellect--neo-humanism (1999) by "Ānandamūrti". Is that Shrii Shrii Anandamurti? Ah, yes it is. Nice catch! GaramondLethe 18:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a "catch", Garamond. And I suspect that you already knew what I have pointed out, because even before I could post my response you had struck out "the book" and replaced those words with a specific name of the book in quotation marks. Regrettably, as stated in my latest comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prabhat_Samgiita, it is getting very hard for me to maintain the assumption that your words and actions are in good faith. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that all articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users with various excuses seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP are not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.
Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.
My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in spreading the totality of human knowledge, if by that you mean "everything that anybody thinks they know", but it aims to providing reliable and encyclopedic information. If Sarkar's books are not discussed by other authors in reliable sources then how can we spread reliable information about them? How can we know whether the books are true, or nonsense? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colapeninsula. Yes, it is true that according WP guideline and in order to make WP a more reliable encyclopaedia, we need to use reliable sources and provide encyclopaedic information. However, it's not so true that Sarkar's books are not discussed by other authors in reliable sources. Yet many off them are offline and non-English sources as Sarkar happens to be an Indian and happens to have originally published his books in non-English languages such as Bengali and Hindi. We should not let systemic bias to come in the way of our better judgement. Google hit counts are not always so reliable to establish notability. And we should not let a bunch of old editors systematically target and try to delete or undermine a bunch of articles, just because they happen to be related to an ideology or religion, that they do not like; especially if those articles were so recently created in good faith by newbies that don't know the rules much. They could be tagged for citations, notability etc and those who made the deletion requests could have tried to better the article themselves or try to explain those willing how to do it. If still, after sometime there was no betterment in notability and better sourcing, neutral language etc. they could be tagged for deletion, but not 8 of them at the same time! And they should not have done propaganda here and there, this and that noticeboard to canvass more people to vote. These are not good faith edits and this is part collaborative effort to destroy all articles related to the ideology of Sarkar, done by gaming the system. This kind of stuff, simply should not happen in Wikipedia. More experienced people should not game the system, against newbies who, naturally, make mistakes, that could be corrected. Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to have a conversation about this? GaramondLethe 22:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a clear non-notable subject, the arguments that are provided in favour of keeping don't seem to be based on WP:NBOOK, as there is no substantial independent reliable coverage to be found, or referred to, anywhere I've been totally convinced by Abhidevananda and his helpful reference to another encyclopedia that we should accord the same treatment and Merge to neohumanism - this would be consistent with the specialist encyclopedia, perfect solution ---- nonsense ferret 21:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (1) Regarding the notability of the subject matter of this book, as I mentioned in my Keep vote, it has been assigned Mid-importance on the Philosophy portal's importance scale. So, clearly, someone considers the subject to be notable. (2) Regarding "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism", it is the foundation of Sarkar's philosophy, neohumanism. As such this book has clearly made a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement (per WP:NB). (3) This book is mentioned in at least two third-party, independent reviews by Helen Crovetto. In her chapter of James R. Lewis's "Violence and New Religious Movements" (2011, Oxford University Press), Crovetto writes: "In The Liberation of Intellect: Neo-Humanism (1983), Sarkar did not limit himself to humanistic concerns and defended the developmental rights of animals, plants, and even allegedly nonsentient entities such as rocks. Likewise, Ananda Margiis consider themselves to be broad-minded universalists." With this one statement, she both discusses this book and implies that this book has made a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement (again, per WP:NB). Furthermore, Helen Crovetto also wrote a separate article dedicated specifically to Sarkar's neohumanism. That article is: Crovetto, Helen. 2005. "Ananda Marga’s Tantric Neo-humanism", published as pages 47-49 of the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature", ed. Bron Taylor, New York: Continuum International. Unfortunately, I currently do not have access to the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature", but it would be virtually impossible to write a two-page treatment of Sarkar's neohumanism in a scholarly publication without referencing the book under discussion here, "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". Anyone here with access to the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature" may kindly confirm this point if they have any doubt about it. So I think that notability of this book is well-established by any standards, including even the strictest interpretation of Wikipedia standards. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did a better google search for the section on neohumanism in the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature". By good fortune, this time I was successful (see here). As expected, "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" is prominently mentioned. It comes up in the second sentence of Crovetto's remarks. I quote: "Ananda Marga is a contemporary Hindu Tantric sect with an international following of several million people. Their animal- and plant-rights philosophy, called Neo-Humanism, is based on a book of the same name written by P. R. Sarkar (1921–1990)." So, once again, it is my contention that this book fully meets the notability requirements of WP:NB and that the AfD on this book should be roundly rejected. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are quite right, that sounds like a great argument for giving the book the same treatment in this encyclopedia - so we should give it a mention in an article about neohumanism and no need to have an article of its own - exactly like that encyclopedia - seems like a reasonable solution to me ---- nonsense ferret 15:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NF, Thank you for acknowledging notability here and adjusting your vote. However, I don't believe that you make a strong case for merger. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It has 4,000,000 articles of very wide variety. The "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature" is a printed book that has only 1,000 articles in particular niche. So, for example, general humanism gets various mentions in that encyclopedia, but it has no separate entry in it. Would you eliminate the Humanism article from Wikipedia on that basis? That other encyclopedia does not seem to have many separate or even semi-separate articles for books. "The Quran" is a separate article, but the "New Testament" - while set apart - is labeled as an extension of Christianity (Christianity 3). So the two encyclopedias - Wikipedia with its 4,000,000 articles and this printed encyclopedia with its 1,000 articles - are not highly comparable, and I did not intend to make any comparison. I think it would be absurd to try to restructure Wikipedia along the same, substantially different model that the other encyclopedia uses. I merely cited that other encyclopedia as proof of notability for the book (in accordance with WP:NB). Wikipedia has separate articles for books and even has guidelines on which books are deserving of such an article - guidelines which "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" now clearly satisfies. So there is no justification for merging this book article with any other article. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, compelling such a merger under these circumstances is also not supported by Wikipedia policy... especially if the main ground seems to be that the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature" does not contain a separate article for this book. So I stand on my point that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" clearly meets the standard of notability set out in WP:NB; and, as such, the nomination for deletion of the article on the book must fail. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it amply demonstrates that if such a specialist encyclopedia cannot find the material and the notability for a separate article on this book, then a general encyclopedia like wikipedia won't either. The onus is on you to establish it is notable, and this reference to the book doesn't represent substantial coverage. Very interesting that you say that the other encyclopedia doesn't have an article on humanism - you are right to mention this as it clearly undermines the credibility of this as a source even further - well spotted. You have failed to establish that this books is notable, therefore the article must be deleted in its current form - it might be appropriate to merge into neohumanism as a source there, but certainly doesn't have notability of itself and should be deleted otherwise. From the other contributors, it seems we are developing a good consensus on this point. ---- nonsense ferret 17:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, NF, but I don't follow your logic. I would say that if even a specialized encyclopedia found this book to be notable, then a more general encyclopedia - with 4,000 times more articles in it - should welcome an article on this book. As for consensus, it is not a mere vote count. What I see here are two distinct positions, each of them argued on the basis of policy. However, the argument against a dedicated article on this book is weaker than the argument for a dedicated article, because the former argument must establish that this book does not meet any of the five criteria of WP:NB (including #3 "a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement) and that there are no third party reviews of the book that Wikipedia deems to be independent and reliable. But I have nullified both of those arguments with the two articles that I just cited. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under a misapprehension that there is a burden of proof on those who think that the article is not notable. In fact it is for those who believe it is notable to establish this fact. You have thus far failed to put forward a convincing argument here - there has been no substantial coverage provided such as an indepth critical review of the book - I'm sure people would certainly change their minds if such coverage were to be produced as has been noted by one of the other editors above. ---- nonsense ferret 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, NF, I am not under a misapprehension here. WP:NB clearly states: "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:...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." I have presented two different reviews published in two different sources - entirely third-party and independent - that both indicate that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" has "made a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement". I could go further and point out that the entire system of education for all Ananda Marga schools - from kindergarten to university - is now commonly described as neohumanist education. We are talking here about many hundreds of schools. Neohumanism is not just taught in the Ananda Marga primary and secondary schools, but is also offered as a course of study by the Philosophy Department at the Ananda Marga College. All instruction in neohumanism is based on "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism", which is the primary text for that philosophy. Hence, item 4 of WP:NB is also met: "4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." I might point out here that item 4 has a footnote that reads: "This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science." This footnote perfectly describes the nature of "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". Hence, in accordance with points 3 and 4 of WP:NB - two points, not just one as is all that is required - a presumption of notability has been firmly established. --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be an easier argument to make if there was an article on the Ananda Marga schools with a section on their curriculum. GaramondLethe 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having some difficulty reconciling some of the things you have said - perhaps if you can provide some independent reliable sources to clarify and verify your claim this might help - now you say that "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." but on 5 November 2012 you seemed to say that neohumanism is only taught formally at the "university level" at the college Ananda Marga gurukula Talk:Neohumanism. Is there a reliable source which provides details of this course, including the accreditation, content and level of study. That you assert this may be taught in one single college (which seems to have quite a small number of students and is there specifically to promote this movement) seems a long, long way away from establishing that the book is the subject of instruction in multiple colleges/universities. Indeed I have as yet been unable to establish whether the book even meets the threshold for WP:NBOOK in terms of the number of library holdings of the book. If it turns out not to meet this, then it would be quite unsafe to try to establish a case on these guidelines. The consensus does seem to be coming together around merging to Neohumanism - now that I've researched this subject even further however, I feel that it might need to be renamed to Neohumanism (Sarkar) as the theories of Paul Kurtz could possibly be established with the greater notability, not to mention M N Roy - perhaps the most accurate is the Ananda Marga Yoga Society. Also, I think there seems to be some confusion regarding what would constitute a critical review - a mention of the book cannot really be said to be a review as far as I can see. ---- nonsense ferret 01:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NF, you do see the word "formally" in the quotation from me that you quote but oddly leave out of your quotation marks? Neohumanism is a subject of instruction, but I do not claim that there is a dedicated course on that subject except at the college/university level. So my point at Talk:Neohumanism was that the subject of "Neohumanistic education" - which had been introduced by another editor as a section of the article on Neohumanism (the theory) and which talked mostly about kindergartens - might better be addressed in an article on the Ananda Marga education system. Nevertheless, I ended my comments that you have very selectively quoted with the following: "For the record, I am not necessarily opposed to a section on education in the Neohumanism article. But that section should amplify the understanding of neohumanism as a theory/philosophy and not merely promote Ananda Marga schools or particular authors as a means toward that end." I should add here that the remark you quote was about the first version of the article. That article was subsequently rewritten, and a section on Ananda Marga schools was - and currently is - included in the Neohumanism article here. As for your remark about the Ananda Marga college being "there specifically to promote this movement", that allegation is totally false. Kindly substantiate that remark or withdraw it. --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge and redirect to Neohumanism. Fails WP:NBOOK. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. The target Neohumanism has enormous issues in that it is built on almost exclusively primary sources, but that can be dealt with separately. The arguments here are almost identical to those voiced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell and in many other recent Afds concerning articles developed by Sarkar's proponents. Location (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neohumanism and Notability of the Ananda Marga education system (often referred to as "neohumanist education"): I add here this important link (suggested by Abhidevananda in one of the several AfD proposed to delete from WP all the articles related with Shrii P.R. Sarkar and His vast production). See here. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That link gives me "Internal Server Error (500)". Anyway, the query does not mention the subject of this discussion, "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". What are you trying to achieve? bobrayner (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refreshing it gives a list of other books covering similar titles; my concern still stands. To show that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" is notable or important in some way, you need sources which discuss "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism", not lists of other books with similar words in their titles. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism is the book in which Sarkar sets out in detail his vision of a new humanism - a neohumanism. That same neohumanism in turn inaugurated a wave of new thinking in respect to not just education but also future studies. At least the first 12 out of the 15 scholarly articles on that page - and no telling how many articles on the succeeding pages - are inspired by and, no doubt largely based on, what Sarkar wrote in The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism. Accordingly, that list of scholarly articles - flippantly dismissed by Bob Rayner as just "titles with similar names" - actually establishes the notability of The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism beyond a shadow of a doubt. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This archive contains a signed statement from Cathy Lee, Director of the Sunshine School in Laos. Her statement testifies to the fact that both "A Guide to Human Conduct" and "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" are core material in respect to the training of teachers and the curriculum imparted to the Sunshine School students. Over the coming days, I expect to receive more documents testifying to the same effect. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a well written article of an important indian phylosopher. We can improve it without deleting it.--Anta An (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar While the information in the article has some encyclopedic value, the book is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Miniapolis 15:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The question of notability has been answered with regards to the notability of the person of P.R. Sarkar. Additionally, the book makes a significant contribution to a political/religious movement as per WP guidelines - establishment enough by Crovetto's work, and as standard curriculum for AM education. All clearly stated. Unfortunately, the systemic bias issue within WP continues to rear its ugly head. As has been noted, plans to list AfD on all things Sarkar are afoot. Hard to AGF even with a merge. --DezDeMonaaa (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The man was notable enough. We all agree about that, but his works should not be listed separately unless they are proven to be notable, too. Where are the truly independent sources in this case? I have not found them per WP criteria. I have, however, found the ubiquitous sockpuppet here. Again, a reasonable solution would be to summarise the content of this article on the main Sarkar page.--Zananiri (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summation of arguments for Keep

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 [1] [2] [3]. 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)
--Abhidevananda (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you establish that the thresholds for using WP:NBOOK were met in terms of the number of library holdings - I haven't seen this mentioned by anyone yet? --nonsense ferret 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Worldcat knows of only 8 libraries with a copy. Garamond Lethet
c 13:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And this is exactly the type of picayune argument that I addressed with the remark about WP:IAR. We already know about WP:BIAS, so I have to wonder how many languages did Garamond search in? For example, did he search for the Hindi title or the Bengali title? Does Worldcat have a thorough index of Hindi and Bengali libraries. And, if so, did Garamond search in those languages. And even if only 8 libraries are covered instead of 12, does the difference of 4 libraries mean that the Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia, WP:IAR, would not apply? --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not complicated, surely if you have links to evidence of the necessary holdings you can just provide them here and we can get this particular aspect cleared up quickly? --nonsense ferret 14:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of arguments for delete/merge

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.

  • In-depth coverage of the book by independent sources outside the sarkarverse is simply not found. The book is part of a closed 'sarkar-verse' within the terms of WP:FRINGE no significant coverage outside of those with a direct interest in the movement such as it is.
  • The argument has been presented above that the book makes "a significant contribution to a notable ... political or religious movement." and "the book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." The case for this high level of 'so historically significant' has just simply not been met by any evidence produced so far. We have statements from admitted supporters of Sarkar that he is very significant, but there is no evidence of very indepth coverage from totally independent sources outside of the "sarkar-verse" to attest to this.
  • No independent evidence in reliable sources has been provided that this book is the subject of instruction in any university or school. Very specifically it is stated that lessons at a very small number of schools follow neohumanist principles, but this is very far from establishing that the book is actually used as the subject of study. There is a small Ananda Marga degree college (which is affiliated to a local University) and it is said that there is a specific course in neohumanism available there - no evidence of this has yet been provided, but it is submitted that even if this were true, as a college within the sarkarverse, it clearly does not meet the general acceptance within "academia" as a subject fit for study which is what the priniple of WP:NBOOK is establishing.
  • The argument is made above that " 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"". This argument involves a number of points which are used time and time again to try to avoid the deletion of articles on subjects which are not notable. These are in fact recognised fallacies. WP:USEFUL The argument that WP has plenty of space for articles -"we are not killing trees", and it will do harm to have this article that there is little public interest in outside the "sarkar-verse" is widely recognised as not a valid argument. This sort of fallacious reasoning could be used for keeping anything in wikipedia. WP:NOHARM "Wikipedia is not the place to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc." Wikipedia is not here to provide publicity for books that have not been reviewed in peer-reviewed literature, that is an erroneous conception of what Wikipedia is about - it does not exist to promote things to the wider world that are not well known outside of their own fringe universe. WP:VALINFO
  • There is no evidence yet provided that the book even meets the threshold library holdings required for considering WP:NBOOK as relevant. Even if this is provided, as noted above reliance on the guidelines is likely to fail, but without this evidence, arguments based on WP:NBOOK should not even be entertained.
  • The main supporter of keeping this article "as someone who frequently gives lectures on the subject of neohumanism" would of course greatly wish it to be kept, why the issue of this apparent conflict of interest within the terms of WP:COI isn't mentioned more surprises me greatly, but this is a side issue and shouldn't detract from the fact that the arguments made for keeping this article fail completely on their own merits.--nonsense ferret 13:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

  • In a lengthy statement, NF only managed to address one of the three criteria for notability that I put forward - Criterion 5 (historical significance of the author) of WP:NBOOK. Naturally, here a subjective evaluation is required, and so perhaps this is the easiest of the three arguments to dispute. However, I would refute NF's claim that this argument (Criterion 5) is made only by "admitted supporters of Sarkar". I pointed everyone to an AfD debate where this argument was put forward by a Wikipedia administrator, who absolutely is not - to the best of my knowledge - an "admitted supporter of Sarkar". I have not seen any evidence that J04n has ever done any editorial work on a Sarkar-related article in Wikipedia, and I have no reason to believe that he is a member of Ananda Marga.
  • NF mentions Criterion 3 (significant contribution to a significant religious movement), but NF merely lumps Criterion 3 together with Criterion 5 and then only argues against Criterion 5. NF says nothing at all to counter Criterion 3. The fact is that - even though there is also a subjective element to Criterion 3 - the evidence for Criterion 3 is nevertheless overwhelming.
  • Regarding Criterion 4 (subject of instruction at multiple schools), we don't need to consider any subjective elements. This book definitely satisfies that criterion on objective grounds. Presumably, that is why NF completely ignored this criterion (and presumably that is why another critic, CP, added stringency to the criterion that is in no way found at WP:NBOOK).
  • As to the rest of NF's arguments - threshold levels, etc. - has NF or Garamond searched the records of the National Library of India, and, if so, did they search in all of the various languages of India? Presumably not. Furthermore, the threshold standards that NF asserts are also just guidelines. WP:NBOOK clearly states: "There will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but they will be rare and good reasons for the notability of such books should be made very clear." That is exactly what has been done in the table above.
  • Given the fact that NF did not so much as address two out of three of the main arguments put forward for keeping this article (Criterion 3 and Criterion 4 at WP:NBOOK), NF's final claim that "the arguments made for keeping this article fail completely on their own merits" is entirely unsubstantiated. Rather, it is just empty rhetoric. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on rebuttal

  • That further statement really fails to be worth of the name rebuttal, and I'm happy for people to judge the arguments made and summarised on their own merits. No new evidence was, or should have been introduced by the summaries above, it is not the point of summaries just to try and grab a grandstanding opportunity to have the last word, and if there is a place for rebuttals it should clearly be next to the original arguments. I'm happy that any independent commentators will judge these arguments fairly, and am quite well aware that nobody will convince someone that has a clear WP:COI which is precisely one of the reasons why they are discouraged from contributing to articles on subjects where there is a conflict.--nonsense ferret 16:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NF, I did not realize that you had somehow become the official or the dominant spokesperson for Garamond Lethe's AfD nomination. Pray tell, how did that happen, and how was I to know that this is the case? But if that were so, and we were going to adhere to formalities, then why did you and Garamond add comments under my summation, thereby setting the example that I merely followed? Why did you censure me on this matter and not also Garamond - and indeed yourself - for the same and prior conduct? And why must I suffer repeated personal attacks from you at this stage of our debate? COI, grandstanding, wanting the last word? A bit more civility and assumption of good faith would be appreciated here. Finally, if we were going by formalities, then certainly you should have presented your summation before mine. Typically, at the close of a debate, the person or team affirming the motion (in this case, a nomination for deletion) would speak first. The person or team negating the motion would speak last. But, anyway, my remarks had nothing to do with grandstanding, having the last word, or any kind of formality. I merely asserted my right to point out that your "summary of arguments" failed to address 2 out of 3 of my main points - 2 out of 3 of the criteria of WP:NBOOK that I had cited - and yet you asserted that "the arguments made for keeping this article fail completely on their own merits". Neither you nor anyone else supporting this AfD motion have presented adequate arguments to make such a grandiose claim. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If you can't pound the facts, pound the law. If you can't pound the law, pound the facts. If you can't pound either, pound the table." Garamond Lethet
    c     20:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen. ('Where they start burning books, they will end in burning human beings.) — Heinrich Heine, from his play Almansor (1821)" DezDeMonaaa (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be on to something there. Do you know of anyone who has tried to ban (or burn) this book? That would be a strong indication for notability. I've not seen anything to that effect, which leads me to believe that no one cares enough about this book to try to suppress it. (Please don't try to make an argument that removing articles dedicated to self-published, non-notable books is suppression. You may do what you like with your own printing press, but that does not mean you can do what you like with printing presses that don't belong to you.) Garamond Lethet
    c     20:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hilariously, Garamond, you miss the point. There is no printing press. Expansion of articles is necessary for the health of WP regardless of the subject matter, or the relative obscurity of any given topic. Notability has been established and continues to be established. Information is what is important for the masses. Let them decide what they choose to inform themselves about in the manner in which they choose. I am not accusing you of censorship, only of being a bit small minded with regards to the role of WP (not the subject matter at hand - though you may be about that as well. :)) You yourself said you weren't notable enough for WP despite having been published, etc. Well why the hell not? Might be just the necessary medicine to relieve what sounds like a case of bitterness, huh? :) DezDeMonaaa (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the policy stands obscurity is highly relevant, see WP:EVERYTHING and WP:DUE --nonsense ferret 18:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

  • No one mentioned this, however I strongly opine that a philosophy on humanism has nothing to do WP:FRINGE. Nonsense Ferret, I do not understand how you are able to include this within Fringe. Moreover, this has already been done, citing music and art as fringe by two other editors, in the failed deletion discussion on Prabhat Samgiita.
  • A second comment, is that, unfortunately, I'm observing that many editors are not assuming good faith any more, thus preventing a consensus to be reached. However this should not be so surprising, given the fact that the same group of people consequently nominated 12 or more articles for deletion and voting as a block, with people that they had mostly canvassed from the fringe noticeboard.
  • So, anyone coming from that noticeboard. I would like to assure you with all my honesty that this is not an ordinary fringe issue. I, personally as a scientist, know well what fringe is. And that some of the articles related or linking to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar had/has some fringey-looking content is not a valid reason for us to assume immediately that anything related to Sarkar is fringe. (That would be inheritance of fringe, which after my research area that included inheritance of epigenetics, would be an interesting one to research.;) ) So, I'm asking to anyone that came from the Fringe noticeboard, to please keep an open mind. Friendly, --Universal Life (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is arguing here that this is a fringe issue. The issue for this book is its lack of notability. Garamond Lethet
    c     20:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Garamond - more than happy for you to reword my summary above in any way you see fit, if it doesn't quite meet with your understanding of the arguments. I hoped it would be helpful to provide the summary, but very keen not to have misrepresented anyone. --nonsense ferret 20:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NF: On the contrary, you've argued this better than I could have. But just for sake of clarification, I understand you to be arguing that the lack of notability is a result of Sarkar's writings being WP:FRINGE. I think UL would rather argue whether or not Sarkar's work should be considered fringe. I'll grant that point for sake of this discussion in order to keep the focus on notability: both fringe and non-fringe self-published book that have no independent review or discussion need to establish their notability some other way, and you've done an excellent job summarizing why none of the potential standards of notability have been met for this text. Garamond Lethet
c 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: after reading all the arguments proposed in this AfD I am more than convinced of the notability of this fundamental book on the holistic philosophical theory elaborated by Shrii Sarkar and part of the philosophy of the Ananda Marga movement. For this reason I change my vote.--Cornelius383 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

01:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, it seems that Sarkar is too modern for the University of Calcutta's concept of "contemporary", which apparently only includes people who died no later than 1950 (almost 65 years ago). But then, Garamond, are you arguing that if one university does not have this book in the syllabus of its undergraduate philosophy course, then that somehow overcomes the fact that hundreds of other schools up through the tertiary level do? And why bring us a syllabus from a "state-government administered" institution, when you know full well that the organization that Sarkar founded, the organization that sells this book, has been in conflict with the state government of West Bengal up until very recently? (Only in May of 2011 did Mamata Banerjee and her All India Trinamool Congress party finally wrest power from the Communist Party of India (Marxist), long under the direct control or tutelage of Jyoti Basu.) Surely, Garamond, you know all of this politics, as even this week itself you have been engaged in edits to a minor Wikipedia article on the Bijon Setu massacre in Calcutta. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still waiting for independent, reliable sources for these hundreds of schools. A syllabus such as the one I've provided would be ideal. Garamond Lethet
    c     03:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief, Garamond! Are you really questioning whether the system of education referred to as Neohumanist Education, established by the same Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar who authored this book, operates in accordance with the ideals set out in this book? Pretty soon you will have us parsing the meaning of the word "is". --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm questioning how many schools there are, their accreditation, and whether or not the text in question is actually used. Do you have a list of Ananda Marga schools? I haven't been able to find one. Garamond Lethet
    c     05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four questions, four answers: (1) How many schools are there? "Multiple" is what what has to be demonstrated for notability purposes, and "multiple" has been established per the two signed letters that were uploaded for inspection. (2) Are the schools accredited? Yes, per the documentation that I provided. (3) Is the text in question actually used? Though the book is not a textbook nor was it ever intended as such (per WP:NBOOK Criterion 3 footnote 5), yes, the book is used, as demonstrated by the documentation that I uploaded as well as the very name of the system of education. (4) Do I have a list of Ananda Marga schools? No, I do not. However, if you want more information about this matter, including a sampling of schools around the world, you could look here. As you seem to be an American, perhaps you might be interested in the website of the Progressive School of Long Island. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm more than happy to let the notability decision rest on the above. Garamond Lethet
    c     14:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this book is in the library of the University of Calcutta: Leaving aside the irrelevant undergraduate syllabus from the University of Calcutta, let's have a look at the library of that same university. Interestingly, it does contain a copy of Sarkar's The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism. (Run a Boolean search with Title contains "Liberation" "Intellect" and "Humanism" here.) Could it be that WorldCat does not tabulate information from the University of Calcutta? Easy enough to check with a search here. Result: "Sorry, we could not find any libraries for 'University of Calcutta'... Only libraries that have created a profile in the WorldCat Registry are listed in the library search results." --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Liberation_of_Intellect:_Neohumanism&oldid=1142498046"