Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anandwan

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 keep. John254 00:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anandwan

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't see why you've included this in Hinduism-related deletion discussions. This is not an ashram in a religious sense at all. The word "ashram" has several shades, and when referring to Anandwan, it is used in the sense of a community, not as a religious retreat. In fact, your interpretation is ironic because Baba Amte, the founder, was an atheist (ref: [1]). - Electronz (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of ashrams and unless reliable sources are found to prove its notability, there is no reason why it should have its own article. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this (1, one, uno, ichi, mu) newspaper article on the founder Documenting a legend That mentions the institution.PB666 ^yap 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a "notable example" of a public international community according to Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World by Karen Christensen, David Levinson, and subject of a chapter plus much more of Baba Amte: A Vision of New India by Hans Staffner S. J..John Z (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above sources are only passing references. As such, I still feel the article deserves a delete vote. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unusual definition of "passing reference" that calls an entire chapter in a book a "passing reference." (Actually more than one chapter, based on mentions in the text, it looks like around a quarter of the book is about it.) Such a definition, used for article deletion, would result in the deletion of most of the articles in Wikipedia. So it is unlikely it could form the basis of a consensus to delete any article at all. The encyclopedia reference is of course much shorter - it's a specialized encyclopedia, our goal is to incorporate elements of such. It explicitly calls this community "notable". Those are only two references found on a cursory search. According to [2] and [3], one third of another book, D.K. Oza's Voluntary Action and Gandhian Approach is devoted to Anandwan. This is a clear - "speedy" keeper, as a notable and well known as notable, community.John Z (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its establishment by Baba Amte, and points mentioned above indicate notability. There is also good scope for further development of content as it has a history of several decades. --Bhadani (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The "strong keep" is not just because I'm the creator of the article. I admit that the article may have come across as somewhat non-neutral in tone when I first wrote it (I saw that Ism schism had earlier nominated it for a speedy under G11, "spam or blatant promotion"), but the subject is most definitely notable. I included sources that I thought were reliable, for example the government website for the district of Chandrapur and the Albert Schweitzer Hospital Fund, UK. Of course, John Z has brought in much better references than mine (thank you John, for your argument and excellent sources). In addition, I have edited the article for neutrality, and concerned folks may take a look at the same. - Electronz (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2008 (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.