Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasant Lad

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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasant Lad[edit]

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

Apparently fails WP:BIO. No independent sources are available to source this WP:BLP. jps (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The author in question has published a large amount of works that are used as primary texts in the field of Ayurveda. Admittedly, there are few sources outside of this field that would ever mention him (as would be expected) but he is featured in publications such as Yoga Journal regularly and his books are utilized by accredited universities in the United States. This seems to be spill-over from a general objection against ayurveda as a notable alternative medicine. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't qualify as independent sources and ayurveda isn't a field, it's a pseudoscientific alternative medicine modality based on interpretations of certain traditional healing arts from India and various religious beliefs. As such, we need to adhere to the standards of WP:FRINGEBLP if we are going to declare that this person is notable. We need sources which are not tied to the ayurveda closed shop. jps (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that your claim against ayurveda is accurate or fair. I would say it is full of exaggerated claims and less than thorough in its method. Not being a science doesn't mean "it isn't a field" of study. Is anthropology not a field? The word pseudoscience is knowingly being used as derogatory term against all philosophies outside of the scientific worldview. But that is definitely a seperate matter. For Vasant Lad "There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner." I can show you many course syllabi with his books such as [[1]]. In a brief search on JSTOR you will find he comes up as a citation and representative figure for ayurveda in publications both promoting and detracting from ayurveda. They are all on alternative medicine, but that is the only field where you could expect to find his work discussed. Besides coming up in magazines about yoga and ayurveda like Yoga Journal, L.A. Yoga, etc he is quoted in:

CHAPTER THREE: We Are All One: Holistic Thought-Forms within Indigenous Societies Indigeneity and Holism, Author(s): Farah Shroff, Source: Counterpoints, Vol. 379, Indigenous Philosophies and Critical Education: A READER (2011), pp. 53-67, Published by: Peter Lang AG, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980884 Accessed: 15-12-2015 22:51 UTC

Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Gregory A. Crawford, Reference & User Services Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Summer 2003), pp. 296-306, Published by: American Library Association, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20864054

It appears he's mentioned in "Asymmetrical Conversations: Contestations, Circumventions, and the Blurring of Therapeutic Boundaries (Epistemologies of Healing)" 1st Edition by Harish Naraindas (Editor), Johannes Quack (Editor), William S. Sax (Editor). This is likely a critical source.

and "Indigenous Knowledges in Global Contexts: Multiple Readings of Our Worlds" by George J. Sefa Dei (Editor), Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg (Editor), Budd L. Hall (Editor)

How great that an author named Quack edited a book about blurring therapeutic boundaries! I'm sure more can be found easily, but as you say: it is tricky to find independent sources for these somewhat insular topics. And being so frequently published its easier to find books by him than about him. But within the notable field of ayurveda (which you can study at the university level in many developed countries), be it accurate or not, he is widely held to be a prominent figure. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources you list above come close to the WP:FRIND ideal: Asymmetrical Conversations and Indigenous Knowledges. In Asymmetrical Knowledge, he is mentioned in two lists of British Ayurveda practitioners and there is absolutely nothing said about him to establish his notability (which is what this discussion is about). He is mentioned only once in Indigenous Knowledges, on p. 227, as the author of reference they quote (this not enough to establish notability per WP:BIO/WP:GNG). I appreciate your work towards trying to find independent sources. Indeed, these two books you cite are much closer to what is required than anything else. But they still don't pass the threshold as they basically are just passing mention. jps (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: If your rationale for deletion is that Aurveda is a fringe theory, you should AfD that article first. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FRINGE as to why your request doesn't make sense. jps (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep world-renowned Ayurvedic physician Vasant Lad, It would be appropriate to describe 68-year-old Dr Vasant Lad as India’s ambassador of Ayurveda to the US. Countless books and seminars. Academically qualified. A film has been made on him. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The DNA India piece is the closest to being worthwhile in our discussion of notability. It is an interesting profile, but I don't see it as clearly establishing notability. Still, if the article is kept, I would expect that that piece more than any other be used to provide details of biographical points. It doesn't speak to the notability of the subject, however. It merely profiles Indian expats without regard to notability. The piece in The Chieftain mentions Lad completely off-handedly, and the movie hasn't been made yet and certainly doesn't rise to WP:NFILM levels. jps (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.