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

The result was delete. The dissent here from Cornelius383 and Abhidevananda have been considered, but the arguments presented are not strong enough to overcome the consensus here that is for removing the article. A redirect option has also been considered, but many who suggested this also gave outright deletion as an alternative. A redirect may however be added at editorial discretion.

Regarding the points made by Cornelius383, the deletion process is not an exercise in censorship. It is something we use in order to assure that the articles that are in Wikipedia meet the desired standards. Among these standards are that the subjects need to be sufficiently notable, and coverable in a manner that is neutral. In most cases, including this case, that means coverage in independent sources that discuss or analyze the subject. That provides the kind of secondary sourcing that is vital for an encyclopedia article.

This kind of coverage needs to be beyond mere citation of the book. Simply a citing a book does not mean that we have secondary sourcing about the book. Unfortunately, that means that the list of citations that Abhidevananda's provided is not sufficient grounds to say that this passes WP:BK. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microvitum in a Nutshell (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)

Unable to find any coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Location (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a recent book about "microvita theory", apparently a twentieth century New Age vitalist philosophy: microvita are tiny little creative catalysing agents. They build atoms of matter, biology and mind, while cooperating with the characteristics of subatomic particles and pure energy. The topic of the book seems somewhat fringe, and neither the book nor its subject really have the kind of long term depth to support an article at this stage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Editor's note: This book is a part of the vast literary heritage of Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and it's one of the various articles related with Sarkar, that I recentely wrote. I've inserted secondary sources on it and I don't understand why to delete it. Have we to consider WP as an encyclopaedia representing the various aspects of human knowledge or have we to propose all that we don't like/agree for deletion? It's very easy to delete an article but it's more difficoult to build, or constructively help to support/expand/improve it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I gather from your remark that this is "the" sourcebook for the theory, at least in English. I personally am much less hostile to this kind of material than some other editors are, but from past discussions I can see trouble here. What I'm not finding is a great deal of independent, third party notice for this particular book, of the sort that could support an independent article. Without that, the fact that it's a must-read for believers or practitioners may not get to the point of notability; and until the theory generates a literature with more depth and persistence than this book, the subject can probably be well covered in the chief article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question to Smerdis in pursuit of consensus: May I take it from what you have written above that you would oppose an AfD nomination for the chief article, Microvita theory, and that you would support a redirect and merger of this article with that chief article? I ask, because this is a compromise that I would support. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I do think that for the time being, the book probably is best covered in the article about the theory. Whether the theory is notable or not isn't a question I have an opinion on yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed compromise withdrawn: In that case, my proposed compromise is withdrawn. I stand on my opinion/vote (expressed below) that this book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) and hence the book article should be retained (in addition to the chief article, which I also deem to meet WP notability criteria). --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This isn't like a settlement negotiation, where the plaintiff agrees to settle for half of the sum demanded, and everybody walks away grumbling. Ultimately, the question boils down to whether the inventor, his theory, or his book have attracted the notice of disinterested observers who've recorded their observations about the theory and its inventor in reliable sources. A notability objection is one of the easier arguments to meet here: produce the significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and arguments about notability generally go away. Show me those sources for this book, and I will change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply and observation: I agree... this is not like a settlement negotiation. But I offered a proposal, because it sounded like you were open to having a chief article on "Microvita theory", and it is now crystal clear to me that a group of individuals on Wikipedia are intent on eliminating or trivializing any reference to anything connected with what they call the Sarkarverse. In other words, I expected one of their group to put forward an AfD on the chief article, which would eventually move in the direction of a merge. So your argument to merge the article on "Microvitum in a Nutshell" with the "chief article" would become moot as soon as the chief article ceased to exist... as has now happened. In fact, the action taken - subsequent to our discussion here - was even more extreme than what I expected. Someone simply carried out the redirect without any prior discussion on the Talk page of the article or any AfD nomination. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Passes Wikipedia:Notability (books). Regarding the value of this theory, I am not competent to say. However, this book is referenced in several articles and books edited by Sohail Inayatullah, whom the nominator herself/himself has described only a few days ago as reliable, secondary, and independent (see here). Furthermore, this book is referenced in the Wikipedia article, Microvita theory. Admittedly, that article looks like it could use a few more references; but I don't think that such references will be hard to find and add. A google search points to many articles, books, seminars, and research projects. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources (this is by design). If you have citations to Sohail Inayatullah's work please add them to the article and leave a note here that you've done so. I'm not sure that will be sufficient, but it's a start. GaramondLethe 05:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Garamond: Sohail Inayatullah is by no means the only academic to write about microvita. And, referenced or unreferenced, all of those writings are derived from the content that appears in this book, "Microvitum in a Nutshell". So, for example, here are just three articles by Sohail Inayatullah that talk about the theory of microvita:

here

here

here

Let me be clear about this. The above is by no means an exhaustive list. It is just three articles by Inayatullah that I could find in a one-minute google search. But why would I add any information to a book on the subject of microvita when the chief article, Microvita theory, has now been essentially eliminated on Wikipedia by virtue of a redirect, carried out subsequent to my above discussion with Ihcoyc|Smerdis and without any prior discussion on the Talk page of that article? Yes, anyone can undo that peremptory redirect, but even my limited experience on Wikipedia indicates that this is likely to lead to a time-consuming edit war. The discussion going on at Fringe/n#Microvita_theory indicates to me a bias that no amount of editing will overcome. (I quote: "the Afd on Microvitum in a Nutshell which I think should just be renamed to Microvitum in for Nutcases".) --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes, I can do google searches too, and based on those searches neither you nor I have found a review of this book or anything else that would allow it to be consider notable under wikipedia's guidelines. GaramondLethe 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar like the rest of the 1,000 new Wiki articles that are about to appear on the topic next week. The Microvita theory article has the audacity to say: "The author predicts that they will soon be recognized by conventional science." Well, let him write the article after they have been recognized. Right now it is pure fringe and could be renamed Microvitum in for Nutcases. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar per WP:SIGCOV. The book does not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The fact that this book is used as a reference in articles pertaining to Microvita theory, which itself is arguably fringe, does not make the book notable. The sources need to address the topic directly and in detail for it to meet the general notability guideline. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 00:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. Ten hits on google scholar, nine of which accessible: library catalog entry, cite in primary lit., citation in business literature, citation in open letter (?), actual discussion of the book but not independent, citation in primary literature, citation in primary literature, citation in primary historical literature (looks like a good article), and citation in primary literature. No independent reviews or discussion of the book. GaramondLethe 01:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry Garamond, I couldn't understand about how you came to the conclusion that 5 or 6 of these sources were primary. Not all Indian names are connected to Ananda Marga and Helen Crovetto and Sohail Inayatullah wouldn't count as primary neither. --Universal Life (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: The primary literature includes (for example) the journals where peer-reviewed research is reported. Secondary sources are syntheses and comments on this primary work. The journal here are Nova Religio, Journal of herbal medicine and toxicology, On the Horizon, Foresight, SpringerBriefs in Pharmacology and Toxicology, etc. WP:PRIMARY has the official word. GaramondLethe 23:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, got it, I think I confused primary with non-independent. --Universal Life (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a lot of jargon to keep track of. Hang in there, it gets easier with practice. GaramondLethe 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; problems with both notability and fringe. bobrayner (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't seem to be notable as a book in its own right. Robofish (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: for the reasons above mentioned by me.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.

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

My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just for the record, cries of "censorship" don't help your case. And just as anybody can edit, anybody can nominate for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Ananda_Marga#Literary_production Very similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy, another book by the same author around the same subject that ended up in a merger. Mkdw^talk 06:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Replay: WP should be mainly based on mutual aid of users, aimed to draw up or to improve new articles. Here we have the same group of users doing the opposite work and proposing tens of AfD's for all the items related with the same subject. What words can we use to define this activity essentially aimed to hide knowledge rather than to spread it? I do not ask for help but I'm pointing out facts that anyone can check!--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:49, 1 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.