Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoga Psychology

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. Consensus shows that this subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, keeps are not grounded in policy. As for the book is in a library comments, that is not mentioned in GNG, and in passing mention at Wikipedia:Notability (books) for good reason. Secret ^account 22:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga Psychology[edit]

(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) — Soroboro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: The article can be improved and there are enough indications towards notability. --Universal Life (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SPI: I've raised my concerns with WP:CANVASS at this SPI. Garamond Lethet c 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is using sockpuppets to vote "keep" on all the AfDs of articles that you wrote. Who would you suggest is the culprit, if not you? I would welcome admin intervention. bobrayner (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that an SPI was filed against me by Garamond Lethe more than four days ago. Though I was never personally notified by Garamond of that SPI, Garamond did eventually announce that SPI here after consulting with - and effectively enlisting the support of - Bob Rayner on Bob's Talk page. The SPI is still "awaiting administration and close"; but two checkuser inspections have been carried out, and neither of the two checkusers identified any sockpuppet, much less attributed any sockpuppet to me. Accordingly, it is quite premature (to say the least) for Bob to declare that "somebody is using sockpuppets" here, what to speak of accusing anyone of being a "culprit". Rather than poisoning the well on this AfD debate, I submit that it would have been more appropriate for Garamond and Bob to have let the admins do their job. --Abhidevananda (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the closing admin is well aware that you and the socks want your articles to be kept, and that various unconnected editors feel the articles fail wikipedia policies. The fact that various uninvolved people disagree with you does not necessarily mean that you're a beacon of truth amid a malign conspiracy; there is a much simpler answer. bobrayner (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bobrayner 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. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of the kind of in-depth coverage in reliable, unaffiliated sources that would be required to demonstrate notability.Dawn Bard (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I don't like it. The author is clearly notable and the book has a relatively impressive publication history. Deb (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb. Can you point me to the publication history you found? As best I can tell, this book (and the couple of translations) were all published by Ananda Marga Publications (which was set up by the author specifically to publish the author's works). Obviously something caught your eye, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what it was. Could you be more specific? Thanks, Garamond Lethet c 15:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did say relatively, and I meant relative to other self-published works. The mere fact that it's been translated into other languages indicates a level of interest in those other countries, though of course it doesn't mean that the book is any good. Having said that, I note that no evidence is actually presented of it having been translated into languages other than Spanish, so perhaps I am easily misled. Deb (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about a translation into Malay? --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's also Chinese. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Bengali (published just a few months ago). There might not be an Internet link for that, but I could get a scan of the cover and cover pages to upload for confirmation, if anyone has doubts. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Deb. Garamond Lethet c 20:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem continues to be that this doesn't show interest in the work outside the movement. We keep going around this same tiny circle: Sarkar is important, and therefore everything he writes needs to be talked about. Ananda Marga is important, and therefore everything about it needs to be talked about separately. That just isn't the way things work here. Sarkar is important, no doubt about that; and Ananda Marga is also important, no doubt either. But this doesn't make everything they touch important. If you can show that people outside the movement show interest in this particular book, and can show that we can write an article relying on these outsiders alone for information, then yes, an article can be justified. The consistent message here in all these innumerable responses, Abhidevananda, is that you can't put enough distance between you and the topic to address these issues. You appear to be willing to take any shortcut in our requirements in order to publicize Sarkar and his works and followers however possible. That publicity is not our purpose, and indeed, we must step up to oppose using Wikipedia as a publicity vehicle in that manner. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, you could just as well argue that the publication of any book by any publisher proves no interest in that book outside of a specific targeted community. But the fact remains that the Sarkar books are advertised for sale, and I can assure you that no one who wants to buy the book has been refused a copy on grounds that s/he is not a member of Ananda Marga. Regarding your other objection, although Criterion 3 of WP:NB does not require the demonstration of interest outside of an influenced religious movement, nevertheless I did indeed demonstrate a wider interest by the fact that a Google search for "yoga psychology sarkar" immediately brought up hits for independent discussion of this book, in particular, some variations on a 2002 article here, here, and here. So I completely agree with Deb's Keep vote as well as Deb's broadminded reasoning for that vote. --Abhidevananda (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2013 (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.