Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies


 * 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The result was   WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 10:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I withdraw my nomination of AFD Shrikanthv (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Does not meet wiki notablity criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * article creator's comment: This book, originally written in Bengali on 1957 with the name of Yaogik Cikitsa and after translated in English, has some historical significance because it was one of the first books published by the indian philosopher 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) 14:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: This book meets the WP notability criteria on two grounds: (3) The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. (5) The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * article creator's comment: after the Shrikanthv's proposal of deletion I've expanded the article and inserted new academic/scientific sources to highlight the clear article's encyclopedic value.--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficiently referenced. Nominator's talk page is also relevant here, where the nom has been taken to task for improper nomination of articles for deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2013 (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.