Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physio-kundalini syndrome

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 merge to Kundalini syndrome. The consensus seems to be merge, & I agree with it. For now, merge with "kundalini syndrome -- one article is enough; further merging should be considered subsequently. Both versions at present need considerable cutting & rewriting and the headings need to be neutral, DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physio-kundalini syndrome[edit]

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

Content fork from Kundalini syndrome. Gatoclass (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physio-kundalini syndrome is a the term used by Bruce Greyson and is at the core of an older wiki article called "kundalini syndrome." The problem with the term "kundalini syndrome" is that it is not used by any authors in any of the source material cited in the article. I move that the physio-kundalini syndrome article replace "kundalini syndrome". I have been working on both to make them more coherent, but they are still very similar. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalini syndrome is a far more common name for this syndrome, getting about 100 times more google hits. GFSK has created this additional article for reasons that are not entirely clear but thus far in his Wikicareer he has shown little understanding of or interest in our policies. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bruce Greyson. The "kundalini syndrome" under whatever name you choose has no notability independent of its proponent. This article by Greyson is the only reliable source I can find on the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply incorrect. Greyson himself acknowledges that the term itself originated from Itzhak Bentov, a biomedical engineer who developed a model for identifying it; Greyson based his own study on Bentov's model.[1] "Kundalini syndrome" gets almost 60,000 hits. Google books lists about 60 authors who have written about the syndrome, and while not all of these have academic qualifications, a number of them certainly do. Stan Grof in Spiritual emergency: when personal transformation becomes a crisis states that the phenomenon was first noted in the West by psychiatrist Lee Sanella, who "singlehandedly collected more than a thousand cases". John E. Nelson M.D. writes about it in Healing the split: integrating spirit into our understanding of the mentally ill, a book endorsed by Ken Wilbur.[2] Edward C. Whitmont M. D. writes about it in The alchemy of healing: psyche and soma.[3] Stuart Sovatsky Ph. D. mentioned it in Yoga Journal[4] and in at least one of his books. Pandit Gopi Krishna discussed it in his widely cited book Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man. A couple of academic papers on the topic:[5][6]. There are plenty of sources to justify the existence of an independent article on kundalini syndrome.

What there isn't a justification for is the existence of two parallel articles on the same topic, "kundalini syndrome" and "physio-kundalini syndrome". I probably should have just redirected the latter article rather than start an AfD but now I have done so I will therefore !vote to:

Merge - Physio-kundalini syndrome with Kundalini syndrome. Gatoclass (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw those two papers, but since they were published in such obscure journals (the International Journal of Culture and Mental Health and in Transpersonal Psychology Review) they are of such marginal importance as to be completely useless in establishing notability. The books are difficult to judge, but a real clinical diagnosis wouldn't just appear in new-age and yoga books, it would be discussed in the literature. What I think we can both agree on is that this isn't an idea that has any real recognition in mainstream psychology. Unfortunately I can't access Turner J Nerv Ment Dis. 1995 Jul;183(7):435-44. so I can't judge if this topic is actually discussed in this source or just mentioned in passing. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting to find "a real clinical diagnosis" for problems related to a spiritual energy that itself is little understood or recognized in the West is totally unrealistic. You are setting the bar way too high here. There are more than enough reliable sources, and more than enough information, to support a standalone article on this topic. Not all of them may specifically use the term "kundalini syndrome" but per COMMONNAME that is the most appropriate term. Trying to fit all that has been written about these phenomena in the "kundalini" article would totally overwhelm it, likewise for the Greyson article - which would be quite inappropriate in any case as he is far from the only author to recognize the phenomenon. Gatoclass (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: David Lukoff Ph. D., the psychologist responsible for co-authoring the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV, Code V62.89: Religious or Spiritual Problem, listed kundalini awakening as a prime cause of such problems. See for example his essay in Kundalini Rising: Exploring the Energy of Awakening.[7] Gatoclass (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-categorised the article as dealing with "Religious behaviour and experience", rather than a "Syndrome", which goes a little way towards stopping it from appearing to present a unverifiable medical diagnosis. This rewrite should go further, since somebody reading the current Kundalini syndrome article might come away with the idea that the medical community uses this yoga diagnosis. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Kundalini syndrome to Physio-kundalini syndrome or Bruce Greyson I have checked all the major sources and most of the minor ones in this article. "Kundalini syndrome" does not come up at all in any of the cited literature. Greyson is the only one who uses the term "physio-kundalini syndrome". And yes, GFSK is getting the hang of how to do things, thanks. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2010 (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.