Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakti mantras

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. Walton^Assistance! 15:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakti mantras

Shakti mantras (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article seems to be a lot of original research. It is also written in the style of a "How-to" essay. Wikipedia is not a "How-to" guide. References are given, but no page numbers, so it is very difficult for an average reader to discern whether or not sources support the conclusions stated in the essay. The extensive use of passive voice in the article also indicates that it is original research. Complex topics such as Kashmir Shaivism and Tantra are oversimplified and the essay seems to be very non neutral in regards to them. TheRingess (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- TheRingess (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As above, this is a "how to" article and Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. Even if it were rewritten to be more encyclopedic, it is sourced from two books which are apparently not academic sources as neither is published by an academic publishing house. One of the authors, Thomas Ashley-Farrand, appears to be a Western practitioner with no academic degree. The Hindu author, Swami Vishnu-devananda, is probably notable due to connections with a large religious organization that has had most of its success in the Western world. The mantras discussed in the article are not written using IAST notation so it is difficult to determine exactly what they are trying to say in Sanskrit. Without a better representation of the Sanskrit source, independent verification of any of the mantras in WP:RS related to mantra theory is very difficult. The article gives the impression of having been copied from one of the mantravidya "spell books" that are sold for a few pennies apiece in some Indian shops, which are notoriously unreliable when quoting sources. Many of the mantras appear to be simple nama japa mantras (e.g. OM DUM DURGAYEI NAMAHA) in which a particular goddess is simply hailed by name, with an associated sound syllable (bija mantra) added. It is unclear where the magical associations given to these are actually sourced. Buddhipriya 04:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am the author of the article Shakti mantras. Let me respond to the above.

First, the article is not original research. It is based on material from the six books referred to in the references. I have avoided original research. I have had extensive experience with mantras and could have drawn on it, but generally did not. If there are any statements that look like OR, I can modify them.

Subjects like Kashmir Shaivism are said to be dealt with in an oversimplified way, but the article is not about Kashmir Shaivism, it is about mantras. In this context, there is no reason why I had to deal with KS in any detail.

The books referred to are said to be "not academic sources" but the guidelines don't say that the references have to come from "academic sources".

One of the authors referred to is said to probably not have an academic degree. Again, the guidelines do not say that authors referred to have to have a degree. If it says this anywhere in the guidelines, I would like to see it.

The mantras are not in IAST and we can't tell what their meanings are. I could have put translations in there, but did not because it is not necessary to know what mantras mean. The use of mantras does not depend on knowing their meaning.

The references do not come from cheap "spell books'. This statement is untrue and unjustified. It is on the level of throwing mud and has no accuracy or relevance.

The mantras "appear to be simple nana japa mantras". So what? Is there a Wiki policy saying that "simple nana japa mantras" are not to be written about? Is the subject banned from Wiki?

I could modify the article to make it more NPOV. I realized that it was probably not NPOV enough, but intended to modify this.

Alternatively, how about if I modify the article to make it an article on the book "Shaktipat Mantras"? This was what I was going to do originally, but I decided to make it an article on the mantras as such. Would an article on the book "Shakti Mantras" be more acceptable? Please advise before deleting.

Sardaka 09:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Based on Buddhipriya's remarks, it doesn't seem absolutely hopeless, but someone familiar with the subject would have to help. DGG 04:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can make the article more encyclopedic by removing the "How To" elements and the statements that are too "original research".

Alternatively, I can change the article, as I said above, into an article on the book Shakti Mantras. This may be the best way to go.

Sardaka 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I might add that I don't think the person who nominated this article for deletion has followed the guidelines, which make it quite clear that deletion should not be proposed "unless it is obviously a hopeless case". The guidelines say, "consider sharing your reservations with the creator, mentioning your concerns on the discussion page...instead of bringing the article to AFD...consider adding a tag...etc etc"

The guidelines also say something about being civil by informing the creator of the proposed deletion. Needless to say, all of this has been ignored by the person who proposed deletion. If the problems had been brought to my attention, I could have solved them by rewriting the article to make it more encyclopedic, or by turning it into an article on the book Shakti Mantras. I don't think the nomination of this article for deletion shows good faith.

Sardaka 10:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep based on author's comments above. It might be an idea to include IPA renditions of the mantras. BTLizard 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Still, Delete. Regarding use of IPA, the problem with this sort of article is that the authoritative notation for what the mantras are would be IAST, which is a lossless notation for the sounds of the Devanagari alphabet. As I mentioned in my prior comment, there is no IAST or Devanagari in the article now, which means that all of the mantras are unreliable in terms of what they are. The Western book being used as a source is something that I have not seen, but if the material in the article was copied from it, it honestly looks to me to be patent nonsense. The amount of work it would take to get a meaningful article on the subject would require collaboration by someone who understood at least some Sanskrit, working from an authentic source that gave the Sanskrit, not a poor English transliteration. The transliteration method being used in the article is not the standard method used within the Hinduism project (i.e., IAST). Furthermore, the attempt at phonetic versions of the mantras is, well, terrible, for want of a better word. It is obvious that the Western book being relied on will not do the job. Furthermore, while documentation of what the actual mantras are (i.e., the words) is one task, trying to associate them with meanings is another. It is unlikely that any two sources consulted will agree on these meanings, unless they are directly quoting one another. That is because these are being characterized as some sort of magic spells, which trivializes them. The article reads like an online Grimoire, which is an insulting characterization of Hindu beliefs. I think the suggestion to make the article be about the book is perhaps a way out, as the book can claim anything it wants to, and questions of accuracy or verifiability regarding what Hinduism actually thinks about these subjects apply indirectly rather than directly. On the other hand, making an article for the book would give WP:UNDUE weight to one author's perceptions about what these things mean. Buddhipriya 08:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the author of the article is now reverting my comments on the talk page for the article [1] and removing nag tags on the article body, which is not a good faith action. This may indicate that there will be problems even trying to get the article cleaned up if it does remain. Buddhipriya 10:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The entire article at the moment is original research. While the topic is worthy of article inclusion, it is best to delete this and those who want to create a well-written page on Shakti Mantras can do so with sources attributed to the translations and an authorative transliteration method. The particular selection of the mantras may also provide an unintentional sense of POV, since certain prayers are preferred over others without any justification as of yet. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per original nom.TheRingess (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - As it stands, the article is almost complete original research. Most of the citations are coming only from a few sources, none of which have shown whether or not they are reliable. In response to the nomination for deletion, instead of attempting to improve article, the author suggested changing what the article was about (to a topic that doesn't seem to be able to meet the guidelines set at WP:N). --13² 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddipriya and TheRingess have both voted twice, now. Is this a good faith action? Doesn't look like it to me. As well, the person who listed the article for deletion did so in complete defiance of the guidelines. This doesn't look like a good faith action to me. You people are very naughty. Non-good faith actions have been known to cause bad karma, which will have to be paid off one day.

Sardaka 10:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book

I am still suggesting that I can turn the article into one about the book Shakti Mantras. This would not be "undue weight" except in the sense that any book gives undue weight to the views of its author.

Sardaka 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the book pass Wikipedia:Notability (books)? Please read the page and reply. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I know the test about notability and I think the book passes the test because it presents a large number of Sanskrit mantras to the general public in a way that it simple and easy to understand. Most books either don't present these mantras or are so badly written that you can't follow them.

Sardaka 12:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you please comment on why the author is notable, and why the claim that this author is competent to discuss the topic of Sanskrit mantras is valid? You have previously said that the author is not an academic, and therefore perhaps has no training in Sanskrit. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for tests of how one could tell if an academic is notable within a field. If the author does not even claim to have academic standing, is there some other basis for the claim that the author is notable? A Google search turned up the following bio for the author, which does not suggest any particular clear background as a Sanskrit scholar: [2] Buddhipriya 00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting twice

By the by, if any more people vote more than once I will delete the second vote. It's not playing the good faith game, peoples.

Sardaka 12:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - AfD consensus is not gained by how many votes are accumulated, it is gained by how strong the arguments are for or against the deletion. If four people say "Keep" but provide no reason why, the one person who voted "Delete" and gave seven guidelines to support that vote would hold more weight and be more likely to gain consensus. The opposite holds true as well. In this area, the reasons are what matters, the numbers are not.

Deleting others' comments can be considered uncivil and can even be seen as vandalism. If you suspect that the vote is not in good faith, you can bring that up by responding to it in a civil manner, but deleting it could cause more controversy than is necessary. I suggest you give your reasons for why the article should be kept, bring up relevent rebuttals to other votes, and let the process run its course. --13² 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Sardaka 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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