Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakras - Number of Petals

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. WP:NOR is not negotiable. Sandstein 05:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chakras - Number of Petals

Delete Appears to be mostly original research, lots of claims made without any references. At best should be redirected to Chakra TheRingess (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I saw this coming a mile off, but for all its non-WPness I liked this article and appreciated all the effort that went into writing it. Some of it might be relocatable to Charles Webster Leadbeater or Chakra, or maybe the article as a whole could evolve into a book summary of The Chakras. Maybe it could find a home as-is on a less proof-hungry wiki. K2709 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheRingess and K2709,

I will provide inline quotes from publications and show references to publications from where the data and subject matter originate. Most of the publications from which the info was gathered are in the list of references.

What I have done so far in this Wiki article is: collecting the data from various publications, tabulating this information, describing the information in the text, and referencing it (much of it just "dry" numbers) by pointing to public domain illustrations.

When the data from these publications are juxtaposed as I did in tabular form, certain correlations show up, something that does not become obvious when these books are read apart from each other. There is nothing new to these data on their own, nor is there anything new to the noted correlations, as they have been discussed by Leadbeater (The Chakras) and Anodea Judith (Wheels of Life), albeit only in a few short paragraphs, without any illustrative anatomic support (such as from Gray's Anatomy) - something I aimed to provide in this article.

I myself would not consider this "original research," but correct me if I am wrong.

As you, K2709, have noticed some considerable effort indeed went into this (some 4 years ago and over the last three weeks), and my plan is to spend as much time on this as needed to make this a worthwhile and comprehensive contribution.

Merging with the Chakra Wikipedia article I already considered myself, and I suggested merging in my Talk page previously. However, I find that the style of that article is rather different from this one, and the treatment of the subject matter there is somewhat superficial considering the cultural, religious and spiritual history of this topic as evidenced by ancient literature from as early as the 8th century BC.

A few days ago I thought the article was ready enough to be checked out by Wikipedia "insiders," hence my request for GA status. So I very much welcome your comments.

There is a problem though as I will be going on an extended vacation to Europe (I live in Canada) for the next two months, so I will hardly be able to attend to this article during that period.

On my return though (July 1) my plan is to keep working on this article until hopefully at some point a GA status is achieved. Any help or guidance from peer or expert (if available) will be greatly appreciated.

In the meantime, I would request if the "deletion consideration" could be dispensed with for now. The other notification re: "Multiple Issues" is quite alright. Thank you both.

--wv (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge: Merge Non-OR (very little of it seems to to be non-OR) in Chakra, Delete the title. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I'm not at all against merging with the Chakra article, that's where the issue belongs.

I'm concerned that when it is done that the style of the combined articles will appear "seamless.'

As I'm traveling for the next two months, I won't be able to spend very much time on this, so if merging is decided upon, and if anyone feels up to doing it, please do go ahead, if not it may have sit there for a while. No matter what though, when I return I will spend much time on "inline citations." I'm presently collectiong the needed bibliography for it.

--wv (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vast majority of this article is based on non-reliable sources. The rest is from non-mainstream sources. Priyanath ^talk 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: About "non-mainstream sources"... With all due respect, but doesn't such a qualification depend on from which section in a library, bookstore or Amazon.com category one tends to get one's reading material?

--wv (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them look ok, but Charles Webster Leadbeater and Elizabeth Clare Prophet as authorities on the chakras? I just don't see it. Priyanath ^talk 03:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That is hardly a neutral standpoint... wv (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on WP:RS: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." If you can provide high-quality reliable sources that use these authors as authorities on the chakras, please do so. I would also add that if any of this is merged into Chakras, then it should be expressed as the opinion of the authors, according to WP:RS: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact.... When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." In fact, the main Chakras article should also be doing that in places. Priyanath ^talk 14:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Could easily be merged with the Chakra article using a sub-section. I found the information contained here useful and vote it should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.232.153 (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a vote, but a discussion. The usefulness of information is never really an issue in discussions of this kind. Wikipedia has no policy on the usefulness/uselessness of material as grounds for inclusion/exclusion. It does have a policy regarding original research, and that policy is that original research is not allowed. In my opinion, for the content of this article to be considered non-original research, the majority of it must have been published in a reputable journal that publishes peer reviewed and fact checked articles on topics such as the relationship between the chakras and the human body. Since this article seems to be written primarily in the style of a lecture (just my opinion) and does not cite where this lecture was first published, it's hard for me to believe that it is anything other than original research. Keep in mind, I am not commenting on the usefulness or validity or quality of the material.TheRingess (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I'm sure that according to the argument expressed above:

"...for the content of this article to be considered non-original research, the majority of it must have been published in a reputable journal that publishes peer reviewed and fact checked articles on topics such as the relationship between the chakras and the human body..."

that pretty well all articles dealing with this type of topic should be considered for deletion. If that were the case we would be doing something close to medieval book burning but... the cyber way!

:-) And what about the Easter Bunny...? Easter Bunny

By the way WP policy [Reliable Sources] is more generous than what the above quote suggests:

"...In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses..."

"...The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context...."

The way I see it is that when one considers "the realm" of the religious/spiritual/mythical/occult/etc., that when respected and reputable publishers over the years have published and republished books written by reasonably well accepted writers (there will always be sceptics trying to dismiss and pooh pooh anything in this field) that when that material is used as a "reliable source" for citations, that it passes enough of a test of verifiability-through-citations. In this case verifiability is not defined as to whether what is written is based on tests and lab measurements, but whether there is enough of a peer supported consensus, attested by contextual, reliable sources on the issue at hand.

It is for that reason that I've listed the sources in the reference section, from which the information in the article will - as soon as I can - be in-line-cited in detail.

--wv (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I'm still not convinced. It's one thing to merely present material from reliable sources, it's another to publish your own research. The article as written, in my opinion, is not merely a presentation of already published material, but original material. Why not publish it elsewhere first?TheRingess (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would advice User:William Vroman to move the article to his user space, improve the content by inline citations and then merge in Chakra, this article is not confusing only but also smelling of WP:OR to remain in mainspace. I repeat my vote: Delete article (WV had posted on my talk "Re: "Chakras - Number of Petals" concerns", this is the formal reply).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the article Chakras - Number of Petals to my Userpage.

I have no time working on it for a while as I will be leaving for Europe shortly...

Hope to see all of you back later.

Please carry on with the deletion process if that is deemed necessary.

Thank you all for your input and advice... wv (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or userify). This article seems to be a content fork of Chakra, and the title is definitely inappropriate. The article currently reads like an essay and has significant POV and OR issues; these are not a reason for deletion per se, but combined with the lack of inline cites it makes it impossible to judge if it contains any verifiable and due information beyong what is in Chakra. So, as Redtigerxyz suggests, the creator should move it to his userspace, work on inline citations and then add any relevant, verifiable information to the main article. Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already copied the article to my userspace.

I have added reference locations in preparation for footnote data. wv (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2009 (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.