Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social cycle theory


 * 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. No deletion rationale presented. Title changes can be requested at WP:RM. &mdash;dgies tc 04:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Social cycle theory

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The title of this page, Social cycle theory, belongs to the copyrighted work of the late spiritual preceptor P.R. Sarkar and especially of his disciple Ravi Batra. It is used in his #1 NY Times bestseller "The Great Depression of 1990" (Simon and Schuster, 1987) as well as the earlier "The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism: a New Study of History" (MacMillan, 1978). The use of this title without permission by some hobby sociologists is not acceptable. Either the entry is renamed or the page has to be deleted. Hasta Nakshatra 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This nomination is either not in good faith or rather ill-informed.
 * Copyright doesn't establish a trademark.
 * The choice of an article title is governed by Naming conventions.
 * A wrong title need not and should not be handled by AfD
 * Pjacobi 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The thought comes to mind that you are acting in bad faith by supporting the Afd to other articles related P. R. Sarkar because of this dispute.
 * Related to the above, you are clearly working in concert with Piotrus who proposed the Afd of the other article which you support and now you propose this article. You both are working to preserve the illegal appropriation of this title.
 * Would you use The Bible or Labour Theory of Value for unrelated entries?
 * The Wikipedia naming conventions do not give you freedom to appropriate others ideas Naming conventions.

Hasta Nakshatra 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of the social sciences-related deletions.   -- Pjacobi 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of society topics-related deletions.   -- Hasta Nakshatra 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Did your guy actually coin the term "Social Cycle Theory"?  Trademark it?  Is the phrase absolutely, only only used in reference to his own personal theory?  Please source any reply.  Someguy1221 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not about my guy or their guy. It is about what is right. Below please find a sample of the works on the Social Cycle Theory. The theory was introduced by Sarkar in the late 1950s as the Law of Social Cycle. It soon became known as the Social Cycle Theory and is presented as such in the works of e.g. Ravi Batra since the late 1970s. If necessary, I can reproduce the actual passages involving the name only. Importantly, this concept is only used in relation to this theory of Sarkar. In the offending entry, this title is being used as a grab bag concept for earlier sociological theories of historical dynamics some of which are not even cyclical. For background please note that the entry on Sarkar's Social Cycle Theory was renamed by these people as Social Cycle Theory (Sarkar) so that they could continue to appropriate the term. Then they went one step further and nominated the page on Sarkars theory for deletion. Such behaviour is not suggestive of moral scurples. Amazingly, this behaviour involves a Wikipedia Administrator Piotrus. Hasta Nakshatra 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.R. Sarkar, "Human Society Vol. 2", Ananda Marga Press, Calcutta, India, 1962 (Published earlier in Bengali)
 * Ravi Batra, "The Downfall of Communism and Communism: a New Study of History", Macmillan, New York, NY, USA, 1978
 * idem, "The Great Depression of 1990", Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, USA, 1986 (#1 NY Times bestseller)
 * idem, "Muslim Civilization and the Crisis in Iran", Venus Press, Dallas, TX, USA, 1980
 * idem, "The New Golden Age: The Coming Revolution against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos", Plagrave Macmillan, New York, NY, USA, 2007.


 * Speedy keep. You cannot copyright a generic term, "social cycle theories" are a basic building block of sociology; this is a perfectly valid article. 1600 articles mention this term without connection to Wiki and Sarkar, 19 without Wiki and with Sarkar. It is social cycle theory (Sarkar) that may be deleted. QED. PS. "Theory of social cycles" show 250 refs w/out Sarkar and 50 w/ Sarkar, which might be used as an argument for keeping Sarkar's version, but certainly not for disputing that he invented the concept which can be dated to 19th century works - as early as 1927 the history of this concept was discussed...!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The term Survey of the Cyclical Conceptions of Social and Historical Process (Sorokin 1927) is vastly different from the term "Social cycle theory" which is what the article is presently titled. The article could be renamed "Theories of cyclical conceptions of social and historical process". Piotrus here implies the article is currently using the plural form of "Social cycle theories" and not the singular "Social cycle theory". This is a disingenious representation. There is a vast difference. The singular term "Social cycle theory" belongs to Sarkar's work. The term was popularised by him and Batra, even if others are clearly trying to appropriate the catchy term. This article has no merit with the present term, which exclusively belongs to the article of Sarkar.


 * Delete. The term Social Cycle Theory is associated only with the ideas of Sarkar. It has not be shown to exist in that form before his contribution. A reasonable compromise would be to devise a new title for this entry. Budfin 09:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unconvinced of allegations. Someguy1221 14:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unless there proof is given that the particular term "Social Cycle Theory" has been registered as a trademark or is specifically copy-righted then there is no discussion. Just becuae it is has not been shown to exist before a perso used it, doesn't mean it is copy-right. Other people use this term generically. JenLouise 04:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no use of this term in the theories cited whereas it is used in relation to Sarkar.Ramayan 10:33, 1 May 2007 (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.