Talk:Pravrajika Vrajaprana

Notable events

I wanted to discuss this edit. Some of the events listed there: Interfaith Conference in San Francisco (2006),[1]photo[2] Community Interfaith Service (2007)[3] Panel discussion[4][5] are notable, according to WP guideline they have secondary sources. However, events with primary sources can be excluded. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will give some more thought to this. The fact that there are secondary sources documenting an occurence does not automatically make that occurence notable. For instance, there could be good secondary sources saying that someone collects stamps as a hobby, but that would still be nonnotable.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see you point. I definitely agree with your edit removing "avocation" and it is very apt. But the notable events, I think they are very relevant in the article. For ex, going back to your example of stamp collection, If a secondary sources says that someone is known for collecting stamps and has a good-collection of rare stamps, known for exhibitions ex., this becomes notable and mentionable in the persons' article. However, if the stamp collection is just a side hobby (and there is only a weak mention), then this can be avoided. Here, the events which have received notable coverage and involve personalities like 14th Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu are clearly notable. --TheMandarin (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We are in agreement, for now, on philately and choral singing. (I am still undecided on the deletion issue, and I will do my best to try to rescue the article. The prime question is whether Pravrajika Vrajaprana's publications are notable.)

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel that for a person's publication to be used as textbooks in major universities,^[6][7] cited in notable journals ex:[8](there are several more), and cited in several secondary source books (few still unindexed by google ex:this is notability. --TheMandarin (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Book list in lede

Just a quick comment on this: while co-authored was missing and is necessary, the other two books are also important (cited in academic circles and also used as text books in Universities). You can find the books being mentioned in the citation as well. Reg this, the website is of Vedanta Society of Southern California, and indeed has some relevance with subject..but on closer examination of the website, I think its better not to include it, since it also sells books etc., and fails WP:EL. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Living Wisdom is an anthology—it can't be referred to as one of her books. Also, I think there is something wrong with the phrase "her notable books" in the lead.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded it, and removed "notable" (possible POV). We can refer to Anna Lännström (2004). Stranger's Religion. University of Notre Dame Press for the introduction on the published books. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

DANAM (Dharma Academy of North America) conference—misleading information?

The conference was held in conjunction with the AAR annual meeting. The sentence, as it stands, gives the impression that the conference was under the auspices of AAR—isn't this misleading? Note 10 would appear to be irrelevant. I can't see what makes the panel discussion notable—it is quite normal that authors are invited to various panel discussions to do with their books.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• To clarify your question, let me quote Dr. Kusumita Pederson, Professor of Religious Studies at St. Francis College : "At a book launch organized this past October by the Dharma Academy of North America (DANAM) at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion..."[9] What makes this event notable is that not all religion related / scholarly books are panel discussed. For ex, go through the history of programs / panel discussion at aarweb.org. Yes, it seems Note 10 is irrelevant,(the refs were copy-pasted) the more relevant link is Kusumita Pederson's article[10], which explains the relevance . Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• To clarify with ex, I think DANAM is a subgroup/subsection of AAR (with official endorsement), ex see:[11] --TheMandarin (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The relation between DANAM (Dharma Academy of North America) and AAR will have to be looked into further. I have no doubts that the book is notable, but I have problems with the notability of the panel discussion. The book launch connection makes matters worse, because rererences to promotion and such are questionable. Many books are panel discussed at some point—this is a poor proof of notability.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The event is pretty recent, Oct 2010., and there are couple of secondary sources. I am sure there will be several articles on this, I am OK with its removal if this does not receive broader coverage in future. But I don't think notability is being established by this alone, however, I think this is a important event, considering the fact that only few scholarly books are panel discussed at AAR annual meetings. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)