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


 * 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. Ignoring the various SPAs, consensus is clear — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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. Garamond Lethe 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 Lethe t 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 -  St ar bli nd  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) — Goldenaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep-I agree with the result of the first nomination: five sources inserted in the article seem sufficient to me. The author seems notable and the topic too.--Soroboro (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC) — Soroboro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * SPI: I've raised my concerns with WP:CANVASS at this SPI.  Garamond Lethe t c  19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor's strong complaints:as editor of the article I expressed my strong complaints and various personal suspicions on the above user on this SPI page. Hoping for a serious intervention of an administrator. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Somebody is using sockpuppets to vote "keep" on all the AfDs of articles that you wrote. Who would you suggest is the culprit? bobrayner (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If I follow your reasoning I can ask you: Who inserted all those AfD's and the "delete" on all these articles on P. R. Sarkar? I have my personal idea on that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

s \\\\\\\
 * Delete Certainly self-published:the author founded an organization to publish his works. That doesn't inherent make everything they publish by him automatically non-notable, but it does make them presumably non-notable unless there's very good evidence otherwise. The author is not famous enough to make everything he writes notable, as he is almost unknown except among the circle of his disciples. The only two religious writers of the last 100 years I'd accept as sufficiently notable for that and Ghandi and ML King, both of whom are famous internationally far beyond their own religious group.  DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Pardon me but Gandhi (correct spelling) and MLK,Jr. (who user DGG is seemingly referencing) are not the leaders of any religious groups. MLK Jr. while of course well known in the US, is hardly so outside its borders. As for the attempted character assassination of P.R. Sarkar by DGG, the organization was founded for the propagation of meditation and service having founded many schools, and a relief organization in which to help with these goals. The idea that P.R. Sarkar was limited exclusively to book selling is like saying Einstein was just doing some math. Regarding user Garamond's Lethe's SPI investigation above, pardon me but it is a questionable action considering WP policy of AGF. Mudslinging like this has no place in this discussion and falls under the category of methinks the lady doth protest too much. It just looks to me like Bob Raynor is Garmond Lethe's meat puppet (in this AFD and in Garamond Lethe's SPI). :) As this book has been sufficiently sourced, notability has been established. DezDeMonaaa (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Garmond Lethe and bobraynor have extensive editing histories. On the other hand, you and at least four other accounts here were recently created and have almost immediately found their way into Sarkar-related Afds. Location (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Given that the book was published by an organization that the author founded, I agree with the line of thought that this is effectively self-published information. Location (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Request for the closing admin: I ask the closing admin to take a look at the table with all the AfDs and the "delete" inserted from users bobrayner, Garamond Lethe & Co. on all the articles related with Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar that I inserted at this SPI.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The articles you created got taken to Afd, and got lots of delete votes, because they fell short of wikipedia standards. Your content gets removed because it is poorly sourced. You got banned for editwarring because you were editwarring. When so many unrelated people disagree with you, maybe it's not a conspiracy... bobrayner (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Bobrayner, please this is not the right place for such a debate. If you have something to say defend yourself here where I inserted a table showing all your destructive attitudes. I remind you that the majority of the dozens of AfDs obsessively pointing on the same topic have been proposed by you and Garamond Lethe. As anyone can check in the table here many users that voted "delete" or "merge" in those AfDs are often or almost always the same. This is very suspicious to me. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Suspicious of what exactly? If a group fo articles are not notable and within the same topic area, it's not that surprising that the same editors comment. That's why we have deletion sorting after all. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay Jay What did I do? 01:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)




 * Translations: As we have been requested to go on discussing this for another week, perhaps I should mention that this book has been translated into many languages. It was originally published in Bengali as "Yaogik Cikitsa" and subsequently translated into other major Indian languages (like Hindi) as well as English. The English version (currently called "Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies") has been translated into various other languages, including Chinese (瑜伽療法與自然藥方) and Spanish (Tratamientos yóguicos y remedios naturales). --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither link works, but I did some googling and determined both translations are self-published (which is to say, they were printed by the publishing company Sarkar set up to publish his work). Garamond Lethe t c  02:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks third party coverage. JK (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable book. Looks like few people are engaged in promoting Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and his works. Salih  ( talk ) 16:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete In the article it states "Some of the herbal recipes included in the book are quoted on scientific journals", which is completely disingenuous. The Indian Journal of Biochemistry & Biophysics (low impact journal of unknown quality) cites the book with "It has been recommended [by ayurvedic practioners] that one teaspoonful of cardamom powder if taken with little honey twice a day is beneficial in high blood pressure and heart disease" [] is my insert, to provide the context, but the editor wrote the text to imply that it has scientific credibility. This appears to be the only source which is not directly connected to the topic, and it doesn't even mention the book except as a singel cite. Non-notable, and I also agree with Salih that it looks like people are trying to promote Sarkar. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Indian J. Biochem Biophy is a source of variable quality, but even so, a mention there is not sufficient trto demonstrate notability .  DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 8 March 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.