Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Lucille

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis Lucille

Francis Lucille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete: Questionable notability, cited published books appear to be "self-published" with cited publication list being a "web store" on Francis Lucille's website. The article is poorly sourced and feels like pure advertisement. Plastikspork (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Amarhindustani's comments

This is not an advertisement. I will gather the required details and update the website. Please do not delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) This is not promotional: I have removed the link to the publications link --I have only provided the link as convenience to the readers. I have tried to provide to the audience at large genuine information that I have encountered. I will remove the ,sections that are marked with citation needed currently. Once I get the citations I will add the section accordingly. 1) http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Sobottka.pdf A course in consciousness, by, Stanley Sobottka ,Emeritus Professor of Physics,University of Virginia ] http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness] Has given the reference to his website www.francislucille.com This is not promotional. Please see the references to his work from other two sites. 2) Dennis Waite. The Book of One: The Spiritual Path of Advaita, ISBN 1903816416 http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/thoughts_lucille.htm I will remove the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reserving judgement, for now: My gut feeling is not favourable but I will wait to see if referencing and tone can be improved. The first thing I find in Google is that he is not the most famous person with "Francis Lucille" as part of their name. This makes searching harder. I am not impressed by the Stanley Sobottka endorsement (it is just a personal endorsement in a self-published essay) but there is a book with an fairly long interview with him here [1]. The introductory bio can be used to verify parts of the bio here. I don't have access to the other book to check that although an Amazon search confirms that it does cover Lucille. It seems to me that the subject is borderline for notability. I don't think that everybody who gets a namecheck in a few minor books on spirituality should automatically be considered notable. Maybe we need a bit more. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Amarhindustani's comments

Thanks So much every one for taking time to give the references.I appreciate all your effort and references. I will try to gather more information as possible. Please give me some more time. --Some of the most precious diamonds are very rare ....I understand the constaint and spirit of wikipedia too,to verify the information available. 1) The Tao of Now: Daily Wisdom from Mystics, Sages, Poets, and Saints,Page 102 Josh Baran Publisher "Hamptom roads publisher company inc." ISBN 978-157174-8842 [2] 2) Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita by Dennis Waite (Paperback - Feb 25, 2007) [3] 3) Awake in the Heartland: The Ecstasy of What Is (Paperback) by Joan Tollifson (Author) page 96. [4] Quote --Everything is grace .When we say yes to what is ,we say yes to grace. 4) Everyday Enlightenment: Seven Stories of Awakening Sally Bongers page 21. [5] 5) The Art of Letting Go: A Pathway to Inner Freedom (Paperback) by Vidya Frazier (Author) [6] 6) Vision Walk: Asking Questions, Getting Answers, Shifting Consciousness by Brandt Morgan,page 100. ISBN-10 0976763141 ISBN-13 978-0-976763-4-7 [7] 7) I am trying my best to get more information as possible. I have found one more reference [serach for francis]--[8] "The line of advaita thinking that I have followed seems best represented by Francis Lucille. He studied advaita with Jean Klein who, in turn, had it from Krishnamenon [Sri Atmananda] and others in the 1950s. Francis Lucille may be the foremost exponent of the advaita tradition currently teaching. " 8) Here are tons of audio cds of francis lucille 2)http://openlibrary.org/a/OL3829177A Though many of them seem to be out of print. I found one --http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1882874811/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all 8)The Bhagavad Gita (The divine conversations) Alan Jacobs ;page 3. [9] 9) Being Home: Returning to the Place We've Never Left by Thomas H Beyer (Paperback - Mar 1, 2007) ISBN-10-595-42465-1  ; [10] Amarhindustani (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Hi, I have re-written the entire section. based on the book you have suggested. I will slowly add each section.it is difficult to do it in one go. let me know if the tone and content is fine. Just my observations on your comments. >The first thing I find in Google is that he is not the most famous person with "Francis Lucille" as part of their name. I agree ;but the topic that I am editing is related to spirituality.where the greatest are silent about their own works. and their works and contributions are realized much later. Few points: Just a search on amazon shows --that there are at least 30 books which quote the present author. In spite of it ...I am finding hard time finding self-published book by Francis ,which confirms ---In matters related to spirituality --The most powerful are very silent and this precisely why I why I am trying my best to save this article. Please feel free to modify the article ...I have quoted tons of books in the external links sections. Thanks Amarhindustani (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Here is another reason to keep the article. Please refer to :http://www.ramana-maharshi.org.uk/ in Advaita vedanta ---"Ramana Maharshi" ;Please refer to the publications in Journal...a very reputed journal. "PUBLICATIONS The Journal, "SELF ENQUIRY", which was published two - four times each year by the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK between 1993 and March 2004, has now ceased publication. Contributors included Robert Adams, Ramesh Balsekar, Douglas Harding, Catherine Ingram, Francis Lucille and David Frawley, along with others among our own members." This is not a name sake magazine.it is a journal. Sprituality is very differnt from "commercial and celebrity" related articles.where more notable --are famous. Here the greatest are very silent. so please dont delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC) here is one more reason: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Klein References "Francis Lucille" "He left an important legacy which sometimes refer teachers contemporaries who were his disciples, including Éric Baret, Francis Lucille, Jean-Marc Mantel" Amarhindustani (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC) One more reference: Reference: Greg Goode, Ph.D., is editor of the Nondualism and Western Philosophers page of Nonduality Salon. Selections from his writings appear on his webpage, No Presence, No Absence. he quotes ..... Francis Lucille, a beloved teacher.... http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0013.htm Another reason why the article should not be deleted. Amarhindustani (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC) One more reason: Jean Klein [[11]] is considered one of the most eloquent masters of Advaita Vedanta of the twentieth century century. Francis Lucille is the prominent disciple among them..others include Éric Baret and Jean-Marc Mantel. That is another reason ...that I have to keep this floating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 08:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have verified on this website and everything seems authentic. Chebard (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)— Chebard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm gonna go with delete here. From what I see, the whole argument in favor of keeping the article relies on that, within his circles, people really like the guy, which for Wikipedia, doesn't really fit into the guidelines, unfortunately. As to the pointer that the greatest of spiritualists remain silent, I wholeheartedly agree to this assessment, but the corrolary to this is that the greatest will be made well known by the populace. I see blog entries, I see an interview, and I see some books mentioning him by name - but as I understand WP:N, that doesn't really fall within the guides. I opine, then, that we need to find more on Mr. Lucille, most certainly, and suggest that the article would be deleted - but as usual, I have no prejudice to a recreation if we have material on him found after the deletion. In the event of deletion, I suggest userfying the article for User:Amarhindustani. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, delete. This is annoying because I think it's a good faith article about a subject a new editor genuinely feels should be covered here, and I'm conscious of how bitey the AfD process can be. — The article's falling foul of various rules designed to prevent Wikipedia being used as a promotional tool (see notability in particular). Those rules oblige us to look for significant coverage in reliable sources, and they force us to delete if the coverage isn't there. I agree that there's significant coverage but I don't agree that the sources are over the threshold. I'm sorry, Amarhindustani, because I can see you've put a lot into this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Amarhindustani's comments

* Retain : The above recommendation have not taken all the points menioned before arriving at conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC) This article has : Published interview with francis lucille in a book along with spiritual luminaries This is very notable book! 1)Lynn Marie Lumiere, John Lumiere-Wins.The Awakening West: Conversations with Today's New Western Spiritual Leaders,ISBN 9781592330102 2)in Advaita vedanta ---"Ramana Maharshi" ;Please refer to the publications in Journal...a very reputed journal. "PUBLICATIONS The Journal, "SELF ENQUIRY", which was published two - four times each year by the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK between 1993 and March 2004. Contributors included Robert Adams, Ramesh Balsekar, Douglas Harding, Catherine Ingram, Francis Lucille and David Frawley, along with others among our own members." This is not a name sake magazine.it is a journal. 3)Jean Klein [[12]] is considered one of the most eloquent masters of Advaita Vedanta of the twentieth century century. Francis Lucille is the prominent disciple among them..others include Éric Baret and Jean-Marc Mantel. Amarhindustani (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Amarhindustani, please, if you have additional information pointing to the notability of the article, add it to the article and note in here that you've added material. If this is notable, we need to know on what grounds it holds up to the notability guidelines here on Wikipedia. Please, enlighten us? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I have strong points to support the above statement. could you let me know when you are planning to delete the article?. I just need some more time. in the mean time ,I am hoping some one else might pitch in to support me too. Thank you for the time and feedback. I appreciate it. Thanks 75.80.152.211 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Amarhindustani (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion debates usually stay open for five days and the closing admin decides on the basis of the arguments put forward in the debate. However, this one has been relisted because few people took part. So you have another five days to make improvements. SpinningSpark 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep there is non-trivial coverage in multiple published books (many added since nomination) so I think this meets notability. However, the prose of the article is truly awful for a Wikipedia article. If this was written in a more detached, factual style it would probably never have been nominated here in the first place. SpinningSpark 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. I vote Weak keep as well. We need to get more editors on it. It is clear that the current editor is trying to do the right thing but he needs help. He missed out on the standard Welcome message, so I have given him that, which should help a bit. Even so, we need somebody who understands this stuff (which I don't) and who is experienced with editing to work through the article issues and sort them out. Ideally, we want a shorter, more neutral and easier to understand article. I have put it in Wikiprojects Biography and Spirituality. With luck that will attract interest. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There seem to be third party sources, but no reliable sources. They all look like writings from other new age gurus, not from neutral sources.--Sloane (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes. It is problematic dealing with subjects like spirituality and astrology because they are essentially just made up stuff with no canonical sources defining what is notable and what is fringe. The trouble is that some of it is clearly notable, despite being made up, due to its long history of being seriously believed in by so many people. I got as far as verifying that the book with the interview was not self-published and that the publisher is not exclusively a publisher of spiritualist books. That is what made it a weak keep for me. In my heart, I would love to see the back of all this stuff but I know that it isn't for me to impose my POV on Wikipedia. Maybe I am overcompensating here? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I've taken a quick pass at cleaning it a bit. To the main author I'm unclear if wp:notability has been met. Unlikely a credible source will state Lucille is the leading teacher of _____ in California but something that asserts why we should have an article on the subject needs to be pointed out quickly and in the WP:lede. Barring that we may be able to sweep a bunch of less notable bits together if they are widely quoted or something. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to the closer to say that I've gone through the article again after these edits were made, and I still feel we're short on reliable sources for the moment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Amarhindustani's comments

Response to the comment made above: >"I agree that there's significant coverage but I don't agree that the sources are over the threshold" Additional Interview from a "Third party source" Neutral publisher: 1.The Below book has interviews from worlds most influential spiritual teachers. 2.Please refer to the interview -->copernican shift: Francis Lucille Title The teachers of one : living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality / Paula Marvelly. Other Title Living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality Author Marvelly, Paula. Publisher London : Watkins Pub., 2002. Description xiii, 281 p. : ports. ; 24 cm. Notes Includes bibliographical references (p. 279-281). Summary A collection of interviews with the world's most influential spiritual teachers as well as less well-known teachers on the nature of non-duality. Contents All my troubles seem so far away: Satyananda -- The dharma bum: Wayne Liquorman -- The smell of burnt almonds Pratima -- The secret garden: Tony Parsons -- Copernican shift: Francis Lucille -- The house of God: Vijai Shankar -- A course in miracles: Mira -- Magical mystery tour: Bharat -- All you need is love: Catherine Ingram -- Love me tender: John de Ruiter -- Amazing grace: Pamela Wilson -- No guru, no method, no teacher: Isaac Shapiro -- The beat generation: Vartman -- San Francisco renaissance: Gangaji -- The godfather of soul: Ramesh Balsekar -- Rendezvous with Ramana -- Who am I?: Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi Amarhindustani (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: The article doesn't include a single reliable source. Totally fails WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Amarhindustani's comments

*Comment There are three very extensive interviews with Francis Lucille in books published by publications of repute [These are not just references, but full length articles]. In response to the above observation ---The article doesn't include a single reliable source. Totally fails Please consider the following facts. Jan Kersschot. THIS IS IT. Watkins ISBN: 1-84293-093-1 “Perfume of Peace” [Full length interview with Fracis Lucille]. Marvelly, Paula (2002). The teachers of Living one. London: Watkins. pp. 61-71. ISBN 1842930281. Watkins Publishing (est.1894) ….continues in its long tradition of unillustrated publishing, specialising in the spiritual traditions of the world, ancient wisdom, divination and philosophy. “There are many engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, hence it is reliable .” This is a publishing house of repute established in 1894. • The Interview is published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses. • The Article is signed. • There is an extensive interview in this book with Francis Lucille. • The books have interviews with teachers :Gangaji[13] , Ramesh Balsekar[14] , Eckhart tolle [15] etc Who are already on wikipedia. So it puts him in equal footing. His books are published in France ,German ,Spanish etc. Books published in other languages: One of the book is published by ,publisher of repute -- http://www.originel-accarias.com You can find that this publisher has published books on other authors of repute as well ,like Dalai lama etc 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) Amarhindustani (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Comment on "equal footing" argument: See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Individual merit. Plastikspork (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Please see interviews and articles in Editorial reviewed Journal. --- Francis Lucille. The relevance of what he speaks in other disciplines. Lucille, Francis, A Conversation with Jack Labanauskas, Part 1, Jan. ’02, Issue #79, pg. 1 Lucille, Francis (interview) – Labanauskas & McKean Jan. ‘02, Feb. ’02, Nov. ‘02 Amarhindustani (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The article, as is, is poorly written in tone and presentation. I will assume good faith though that the subject is notable as a teacher and/or author. All the sourcing and good faith efforts need to continue however to 1. Rewrite the article neutrally and 2. Convert all sources to become inline citations so others can see clearly what is stated about this person and that it is verifiable. To Amarhindustani, you might try a little exercise where you write the article as if this person had recently died. Neutrally you would overview their life and accomplishments. Once you have that start migrating the current material together with it and add sourcing. Even if the article survives for now it will likely come back here if exponential improvements aren't made. -- Banjeboi 09:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete with fire Too much link-spam, self-published sources, dubious sources from cult websites, etc... Lacking any meaningful content or reliable source to establish notability. Jwray (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC).
• Clear delete there's nothing here that even aspires to notability per our GNG and specific guidelines at WP:BIO. The "sources" are all self-interested. Eusebeus (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Categories: Spiritual teachers and Advaitin philosophers. Could some one move this to the to the categories of Spritiual Teachers.

This is not much about the person but about the teaching. Please see other teachers who are already there in WIKI. Adyashanti,Ramana Maharshi,Ramesh Balsekar etc. The request is because --The yardstick used to evalutate the notablity etc will be very different in each category. For example --the publishers in each category and number and type of people accesing this information will vary. We cannot expect the same viewership and publishers reach ,and commercial value of article written for a baseball game and fencing. Please don't compare apples to oranges.Some of the comments above by you are very valuable . sprituality is not very commercial. so finding sources and adding them takes time. in addition to that --some one is this category. may add some very valuable points and can be of great help. Thank you for all the help and suggestions. Amarhindustani (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Amarhindustani's comments

*Comment Conference given at Non profit orginization in 2003 . Other speakers in the conference are all very respected in their respective fields. Amarhindustani (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Comment Every time ,I edit and discover something new . I was starting off with the word --Keep. Please count my vote as only one. where ever you find my login. Amarhindustani (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment - best not to keep saying keep, just append comments. Keeps the discussion from being to obfuscated. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete

I agree with Jwray a lot of the sources seem self published none of the links seem to establish notability definitely not enough to have a article. Kyle1278 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Does not seem to have been the subject of multiple, independant articles per WP:BIO.TheRingess (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. The cited sources are non-RS websites or books published by minor presses. The subject's own books are themselves non-notable; a worldcat search shows that Eternity Now is carried by only 1 library (in Singapore), while his other English books are not carried by any library! Typically even obscure books can be found in 10-100s of libraries; consider for example Rod Dreher, whose bio was up for a recent contentious AFD; his book Crunchy Cons is found in 3077 libraries listed on Worldcat. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Amarhindustani's comments
*Comment : you are comparing the number of books and viewership of two different categories. Please compare the same among the same category --advaita or nodualily.

• Delete. Notable per WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - notability has not been established and referenced sources are of questionable meritJlrobertson (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Amarhindustani's comments

*Comment Could you please be more generic ..which of the sources are questionable and what is your criteria for your conclusion. Comment Thank you for the feedback. Some of the comments above have been very helpful.but some just are too generic and indicate lack of knowledge of the subject matter ,in that case my humble request to you --is to add comment but not vote . I would appreciate ,if you can be more specific. 1.About Notability and Sources: Please don't compare Apples to oranges. Please compare the article with any of the existing topics under similar category -- Spiritual teachers | Advaitin philosophers | New Thought writers | New Thought movement | Vedanta There are not as many Readers/viewers[compared to viewership of romantic novel orviewership of baseball game] for this subject and hence you will not find big publishers. This Author’s books/references are published by Major publishers world wide ,i.e. Watkins [established 1894] Publishing; Publisher: Kamphausen[German] who also has published books of Eckhart Tolle etc, The books have been published in 4 languages --German ,French ,Spanish and English. For example --please find the references of Adyashanti or any other speaker on similar subject. you will not find big publishers as you expect for Fictional Books. Note as per Wiki --"Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary". He has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable and intellectually independent. Some of the sources cited involve evaluation of the original information. People independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published . non-trivial works focus upon this subject. It is non trivial --- you have the subject in detail. A credible independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial. The person is regarded as an important figure and is widely cited by their peers or successors. If you could extend the dead line for deleting the article ..I hope some more will be able to give ,constructive comments. Please give me few more days. Amarhindustani (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep. i am not an expert, but to my view the article is kind of new. i am not aware of how things work here, but i've seen much-flawed articles lasting for years before they were improved. either delete the article now and wait for the editors to publish it back when it is more suitable for wikipedia, or let them more time. however, deleting it now might prevent the editors working together in its "unflawing." this is just my philosophy, and it may well not be endorsed by wikipedia, but at least you've got my two cents about it. Twipley (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep . The publishers are reputed.and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial boards. As noted above, Francis' work has been published in many languages and is cited in many books and articles. It is an important component of the contemporary literature on advaita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advaitastudent (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Advaitastudent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep . Dear Pundits, The publishers are reputed.and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial

Francis Lucille speaks about "The Truth", "The Reality", "Our True Nature" . His teaching is associated with Non-duality, the common ground of Advaita Vedanta, Ch'an Buddhism, Zen,Taoism and Sufism, the same common ground which is at the core of the message from Sages, Saints, Jagadgurus and other prominent Advaita Teachers.The publishers are reputed and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial.

Please don't delete it, but humbly request The Pundits to point out the 'Blips' and the 'Gaps', so the Truth Seekers can come together to fix it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patyogi (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Patyogi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Seems notable enough to me, to warrant a hold, and allow the article to grow! --Ekabhishek (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Amarhindustani has canvassed over 20 users from the spirituality project for this afd. Including User:Ekabhishek and User:Twipley who are now arguing keep.--Sloane (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I had requested help through the talk pages from users who are familiar with the subject and might help me improve the material.Many are helping me with valuable suggestions.I have pointed them to the article.To give their feedback.Some one familiar with the subject will be more helpful to guide and suggest.The objective is to improve the article.

You are most welcome too. And by the way ,those I have requested help ...many of them have tagged it as delete. what they vote is not important.I found an interesting subject and need help to improve it. PERIOD.Amarhindustani (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm seeing a few arguments here that basically state that this biographical article should be treated differently than all other biographical articles. Personally, those arguments are not compelling enough to actually treat it differently. It's my understanding that we have notability guidelines for several reasons but primarily to guarantee that all information in the article is backed up by reliable sources. If several reliable sources are added that talk about the subject (in the body of the article, not in the EL section) then I would change my mind. This debate is scheduled to last several more days, that should be plenty of time to add those secondary sources. I've gone ahead and removed most of the material that to my eyes, constituted original research and unverifiable claims so it reads less like an advert (reading like an advertisement is not grounds for deletion but improvement). I know the author of the article has put some hard work into the article, but it also takes a lot of hard work to become familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and processes and the reasons why those guidelines and processes exist.TheRingess (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks so much ...I appreciate all your help.Yes,As per your suggestions I will add some more sourcing.

I was of the impression that the article will be deleted in 5 days. That was the hurry. if we have few more days .. I will read about the rules in detail. Amarhindustani (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Th

• • Comment Regardless of how much time is left, perhaps more attention to the article and less canvassing of fellow editors. It should be a matter of hours or minutes, not days, to include the references from 3rd party reliable sources. Adding articles to Wikipedia is not always easy, but always rewarding.TheRingess (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you.There were too many rules and terminologies and it was going in circles..after some time ,I gave up.

As I was under the impression that the article would be deleted. But I did find some articles to illustrate what you have suggested. but ,still there are too may words.it seems as though ,I am fighting a case in court.Too overwhelming,and drowned in words :-) Amarhindustani (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Comment Respectfully, from just my viewpoint, you are probably feeling overwhelmed, because instead of reading the guidelines that fellow human beings were pointing you towards, and thus putting forth the effort to address their concerns, you expended too much effort canvassing other editors, perhaps calling friends to ask them to contribute to this discussion, and arguing that essentially this article should be treated differently. That's a lot of effort to go to, and would probably exhaust anybody. As I mentioned, your efforts would have (and still can) be better spent addressing the concerns raised during this discussion (just a fellow human beings opinion which in no way reflects Wikipedia policy). The article will be deleted at the end of the discussion period, when an impartial admin reviews the discussion and makes a decision as whether or not consensus is to keep or delete. In other words, it's not over until it's over. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Point Taken.BTW,Only today ,I have requested others to help me out as I thought today was the last day to save the article,otherwise it might be deleted:-).I will take a closer look at all the information.Thanks Amarhindustani (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

• Keep . The publishers are reputed and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishvs (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Mishvs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete . This would be in line with the decision made about the arguably more notable self published Stephen Knapp Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Knapp, Stephen Knapp was deleted despite being referenced over 50 times on Wikipedia, whereas Francis Lucille is only referenced in user pages. - Q Chris (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way someone put a rather biased plea to vote to keep the article on my user talk, with implications that whoever wanted it deleated "didn't understand spirituality". I expect that they have canvased many others in a similar fassion. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This article's changed a lot since I last read it, and I notice that more than half the article now consists of citations and sources. I'm going to change my recommendation to userfy (which means that the article no longer appears in the main Wikipedia space, but it's still on Wikipedia in an unindexed space that's set aside for Amarhindustani, so that he can continue to work on it without pressure of deadlines and bring it back to a deletion review when he's made it ready in his own time.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Still delete here - I like the suggestion above of move somewhere else, perhaps his own sandbox where he can work on it with help from those inputting here. I have my doubts that he will be able to establish notability. Francis may be a great guy and notable but he has not done much to get notability it appears. One must sometimes toot one's own horn to be heard or have someone else doing it but not via Wikipedia. Will help on sandbox effortJlrobertson (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

I am trying to consolidate all the points suggested and planning to address them,one by one,just few more days will of great help.The material has sources,and I hope that some one stumbling on the article may pitch in too.There are tons of references in print media and comparatively not as much on-line-That adds to the delay.if you delete the article immediately then the chances to bring it back will be remote.Just my 2 cents. Your call.Amarhindustani (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems very fishy to me that the majority of keep votes are from brand new WP:SPA accounts which appear to be created for the sole purpose of voting: Advaitastudent (contribs), Patyogi (contribs), Mishvs (contribs). Checking the logs there are two others whos votes were deleted (due to the fact that the were verbatim copies of one another?): Advaitalover (contribs) and Mvs 82 (contribs). At the very least it smells like WP:MEAT, and at worst it looks like WP:SOCK. Plastikspork (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Let me clarify on this. I did ask for some help yesterday from editors and some of my friends ,as I was under the impression that the article will be deleted after 5 days,I wanted some help.

Some of them might have stumbled on this site. Those I have asked for help was only with the intention of asking them to cite any sources that they know in addition to the ones that I have already mentioned. As clearly mentioned at the page ,it is not about popular vote. so if any one just votes it can be neglected.Please see my comments above on 19 March 2009 to be precise --04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC) on ,I have clearly mentioned this.I am consolidating all the points and suggestions given above and will modify accordingly.Thank youAmarhindustani (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment ok since I find that there are few visits to this site ,I would like to consolidate the points mentioned above.so that some one might be able to address one or all of these. I need viewpoints and suggestions [backed up by very logical reason and supporting evidence) .
  • a) Link Spam ?
  • b) Self Published Sources  ?
  • c) The use of "cult" websites. ?
  • d) Promotional Nature of Article ?
  • e) "Significant coverage' in 'reliable sources" ?
  • f) "Not the most famous person with Francis Lucille in their name  ?
  • g) Notability not met by "a namecheck in a few minor books on spirituality. ?
  • h) "Something that asserts why we should have an article on the subject needs to be pointed out quickly."  ?
  • i) "Publication List being a "web store" on Francis Lucille's website. ?
  • (j) Most all of these issues relate to tone, notability and verifiability. ?
  • (k)Is the current tone acceptable?
  • (l) Publications are minor?

Most of thes were addressed,but I would like to know how may of the above are still open and need to be addressed.

Just as a brief note: Notability and verifiability have clear criteria:

• • 1)Significant coverage is deemed to be more than trivial but less than exclusive."
  • 2)From "reliable sources" :
    • a) Third Party published material
    • b) Secondary Sources
    • c) Peer Reviewed Journals
    • d) University Textbooks
    • e) Magazines, Journals and Books "published by respected publishing houses"
    • f) Mainstream Newspapers
    • g) Independent from subject.

Please give me your comments and supporting evidence. Amarhindustani (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I will be adding these to the main section shortly.but wanted to bring these to your attention.
• I have additional factual material for inclusion [Need some more time to include it in main section]:
• 1) Book: Jan Kersschot, This Is It: Dialogues on The Nature of Oneness, London, Watkins Publishing. pp180-189, "Perfume of Peace", Interview with Francis Lucille; pp219-223, "Revelation of The Divine Hand", Second Interview with Francis Lucille. Complete chapters dedicated to Francis Lucille

I won't presume as to which section these should be listed in but, it is critical to point to the other authors interviewed in this third party published book include Eckhart Tolle,U.G. Krishnamurti, and Douglas Harding, contemporary teachers with current listings in Wikipedia. This addresses Item b ( Self Published), Item C ( Cult Websites, as other interviewees are in Wikipedia), Item g ( notability/namecheck). Table of contents available at

• 2)It should be noted that Paula Marvelley's book, The Teachers of One:Living Advaita has a complete chapter on Francis Lucille, entitled "Copernican Shift." This cite addresses Item b (self published), Item c ("cult websites"), and Item g (notability/namecheck) above.

Of note: Gangaji and Ramesh Balsekar, both non dual teachers listed in Wikipedia are other interviewees in this book.

• 3)Also, the complete list of "namecheck" references for The Book of One, by Dennis Waite, . They are pp 31, 110, 165, 169, 188, 201, 206, 240, 248. This addresses the "namecheck" comment, Item G above.

The Awakening West: Conversations with Today's New Western Spiritual Leaders by Lynne Marie Lumiere.

• 4.It is important to notice Wikipedia regarding the "third party

book publishers" who have published Francis Lucille in France and Germany. Both are independent publishers. The Publisher for Germany is J.Kamphausen/ Mediengruppe, which has an entire book line covering Advaita, including the German translations of "Silence of The Heart" by Robert Adams, "I am That" by Maharaj Nisargadatta, and many more. The website is here: Similarly, the French publisher is Originel-accarias, the pre-eminent publisher of non duality books in that country. A list of authors is here: including Wikipedia authors Douglas Harding and Osho and P.D. Ouspensky,Papaji (Poonja H.W.L) and Ramana Maharshi.

• 5)Francis Lucille is listed as an author of 3 millenaire, a leading peer reviewed online journal on Non Duality in France along with other Wikipedia authors like Ken Wilbur, Byron Katie, Douglas Harding and Andrew Cohen.

Website listing of authors: Further, nondualite.free.fr is another peer reviewed website with work included by Francis Lucille, Ramesh Balsakar, and Jiddu Krishnamurti, all listed in Wikipedia.

• 6)All of these third party sources are relevant in that they address the criticism regarding notability and verifiable sources.Amarhindustani (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Can some one point me to any one article currently on WIKI which you think meets all the above criterion.

Under the same category, of course -Spiritual teachers | Advaitin philosophers | New Thought writers | New Thought movement | Vedanta. So that I can use that as reference to shape my article.Amarhindustani (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete no independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable sources at all about this spiritualist. Works self-published, and no other indications of wide fame, acclaim or infamy. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2009 (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.