Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoga Psychology

Yoga Psychology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar that has failed to gain notability outside of Sarkar's Ananda Marga organization. The two citations to reliable sources are a brief quotation and an unannotated listing in a bibliography. No independent discussion of the book exists in the popular or scholarly press and there's no indication that any such discussion will be forthcoming. Recommend deletion.

Instead of several non-notable articles, the editors might want to create a Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (bibliography) page where each of these books would be listed. Garamond Lethe 03:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm gonna make this comment first, then place a vote. I'm not a staunch supporter of anyone or anything that makes a claim to new frontiers on an ancient practice. Yoga has stood the test of time, and anyone claiming to have "created" or "investigated" aspect(s) of it previously unconsidered is gonna have to put forward a compelling argument. That said, there are a number of fine words in the entry/article that amount to nothing else readily digestible. I'll go through a few examples one-by-one; "...psychology, for the author, is a developing science which is considered to be a part of philosophy. Traditionally philosophy has included the branches of ontology, metaphysics, ethics and epistemology, but Shrii Shrii Anandamurtijii has expanded the scope of philosophy to include psychology and spiritual cult (practices)." - this is an original claim. If he "expanded it", then he is claiming to have done the WP:OR on this, and it needs to have independent, third party sources to support it. I see none. Next, we have; ..."Shrii Shrii Anandamurti claims the connection between glands, subglands, nerves and the traditional theory of cakras (or plexi, psycho–spiritual centers) that are described in this theory on a new vision touching topics that traditionally belong to the domain of psychology and not only to the spiritual and intuitional science. - that again demonstrates an issue with WP:OR, and I have bolded the primary text that develops the impression. These are just a couple of the examples from the get go, more are embedded in the text. Now, after having given some supporting reason(s) for why I do not believe there is anything "new" to Yoga that hasn't existed for literally thousands of years that isn't "claimed as new research," I hereby vote: *Delete Barada wha? 05:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: this is the fondamental part of the phylosophy of an important indian author. We can improve it without deleting it!--Anta An (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete; like so many articles in the Sarkarverse, it's effectively a selfpublished book, the content relies on primary sources (ie. the book itself), there's no real evidence of notability, but there's still a stalwart editor and a sockpuppet diligently voting "keep"... bobrayner (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: the article is sufficiently referenced from my point of view and I think that the notability of the author is undisputed.--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The issue is not the notability of the author who has his own page. It is about the notability of this publication and whther it deserves a separate page. I see no evidence that it is notable enough to warrant this. Just mentioning it on the main Sarkar page would give it sufficient coverage.--Zananiri (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep- a sourced article of a notable topic and author.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Knight of Infinity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - no one has shown evidence of notability for this book. This is one of a set of articles being staunchly defended by disciples of the author but there is not evidence of notability outside of his followers. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Yet another self-published Sarkar book with no footprint outside his movements. Mangoe (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Quite frankly, this is not a book that I have ever recommended to anyone, but the evidence that is readily available to everyone here indicates that this book is indeed notable by Wikipedia standards. Barada began the debate with some ill-informed remarks about yoga being unchanging. Barada then complained about original research, apparently failing to grasp the fact that Wikipedia's prohibition on original research does not apply to the author of the book but rather to the author of the article. Dougweller subsequently implied that this book has only been defended by the author's followers. I doubt that he can substantiate that claim, because I certainly cannot. Then Mangoe merely repeated the nominator's incorrect assertions - assertions that are easily overcome with even a little bit of common sense and a cursory Google search. First, regarding the claim that this book is self-published, I would point out (1) that the first edition of this book came out one year after the author's demise and (2) the publisher is - obviously - not the author. Mangoe [and?] the nominator assert: "No independent discussion of the book exists in the popular or scholarly press and there's no indication that any such discussion will be forthcoming." And, yet, when I just did a Google search for "yoga psychology sarkar", the very first hit that I got was an independent discussion of the book from 2002, showing up (with variations) in three places here and here and here. On the third page of my Google search, I discovered that even WorldCat lists eight copies of this book. So then I changed my Google search to "yoga psychology anandamurti", and I immediately found that this book quickly turns up at this library and also this library. I even found this book in the National Library of Spain (translated and into Spanish) here. Accordingly, the evidence indicates notability, and I vote according to the evidence. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 8 copies on worldcat for an english language book in a popular subject is utter lack of notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite strong feelings of some. The book just doesn't seem to be notable within its given field of study. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The article is sourced and well written. The topic and the author are notable.--Goldenaster (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Goldenaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep- an article sufficently covered with sources. The argument seems notable to me. The author too.--Soroboro (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]