Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies (2nd nomination)

Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies
• Articles for deletion/Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies (2nd nomination)

Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies (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)

Self-published book by the prolific Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. One acknowledgement and two citations in the scholarly literature. Four sentences describing the book in an article in Inayatullah. New, renamed edition does not appear to be cited at all. Recommend delete or redirect to Sarkar bio article. GaramondLethe 07:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Seconded. It appears that this page uses the book itself as a reference to the book. For example, referencing (most likely) the book cover or the book description as a reliable source as for why the book is "different" than the previous edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimpfunkz (talk • contribs) 07:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: I stand by what I said during the first AfD nomination a bit over a month ago. I note that during that debate, one senior and independent editor also voted 'keep' with the expressed opinion that the article is "sufficiently referenced". --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: the article seems well written. We can improve the number of sources without deleting it.--Anta An (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete; fails the GNG for lack of substantial coverage by independent sources. As with other articles in the Sarkarverse, we have the obligatory keep !votes by Abhidevananda and a sockpuppet... bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: as already set in the recent/previous AfD nomination the article is "sufficiently referenced". The book, originally written in Bengali on 1957 with the name of Yaogik Cikitsa and after translated in English, has historical significance because it was one of the first books published by the indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. It also plays a particular relevance for the detailed explanation of using ancient and traditional indian herbal remedies, yogic Ásanas and Mudrás, water, proper diet, sunlight and air for the treatment of certain diseases.--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete- Lacks substantial third party unbiased coverage to make it notable or important, so no need for a separate article. A mention about it in the main Sarkar article should suffice.--Zananiri (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Why my Strong keep: I think that three quotations on specialized texts (two of which academics) are sufficient for notability as already set in the recent/previous AfD nomination. As you well know, :), this AfD has been suggested by the same user who has proposed for deletion dozens of articles on books by the same author. A single user proposing a few articles for deletion is allowed in WP but a single user involved almost always in erasing or censorship activities, hardly ever writing new articles, it's very deprecable from my point of view. This is a little suspicious don't you think so? If we want to go back to a new Dark Age, this is the best way.--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Quotations still don't establish notability. "Deprecable" isn't the word you were looking for, but I rather like it. Censorship is the preserve of governments, not wikipedia. And two separate posts with your bolded vote looks like a clumsy attempt at ballot stuffing. Carry on. Garamond Lethet
  c 19:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• You can !vote only once. Your other comments should not be tweaked to look like a !vote. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete – the book does not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per our book guidelines and per lack of reliable sources. There seems to be a general precedent that while the author is somewhat notable, individual works are not (indeed, self-published books rarely are). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Not self-published and notability is inherited in some cases: First, this book is not self-published. It is published in-house by an organization that the author founded, but that is not the equivalent of self-publishing (and it is a far cry from vanity publishing). Second, when an author is as historically significant as Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, books may inherit notability from the author, per Criterion 5 of WP:NB. Criterion 3 of WP:NB also applies here, with notability established due to the impact of this book on a significant religious movement, namely the religious movement founded by the author. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NBOOK. There seems to be no content worth merging, and the only secondary sources relating to the book seem to be Transcending Boundaries: Prabhat Ranjain Sarkar's Theories of Individual & Social Transformation and Blood pressure lowering, fibrinolysis enhancing and antioxidant activities of Cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum). -- Trevj (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong keep- a sourced article of a notable author.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Knight of Infinity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Keep-The article seems well sourced and written with apropriate footnotes/citations. Topic & author notables.--Goldenaster (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)