Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarita Shrestha (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. Consensus is that the in-depth sources are either not reliable, not independent, or both, and there is no other criteria by which notability should be assessed. The name-calling within the discussion is highly unfortunate, it truly weakens the argument. Article rescuing attempts should be lauded, not laughed at, even when they fall short of demonstrating notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarita Shrestha

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Interviews or coverage in niche special-interest publications are not considered to be authoritative nor do they show general notability. No coverage in reliable secondary scholarship, either. ∯WBG^converse 16:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is notable as a doctor founding a hospital for low-income women in Nepal and for working in U.S. hospitals focusing on women's healthcare, with coverage including in Prevention Magazine. The subject has received national awards in Nepal, which are sourced in the article. I cleaned up the article, RMV'd puffery and added content with reliable sources. The subject is clearly a notable physician and passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is that an Ayurveda practitioner can't usually be a sports-journalist and that there can be two persons in a country, with the same name. Then I note that you are from ARS and I am not surprised. ∯WBG^converse 17:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The awards section User:AuthorAuthor added was about a different Sarita Shrestha, so I deleted it. I had a look at the previous deletion discussion, and it seems like the exact same arguments still apply, so it eventually comes down to whether the sources are reliable and enough to establish notability. Achaea (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ∯WBG^converse 17:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- based on what I've seen. "In search of the medicine Buddha" appears to have SIGCOV, however the author seems to be a quack as well, and the book and author appear non-notable, so I would not consider that an independent source, it's to be expected that if a naturopath or whatever comes to Nepal, they'd seek another practicing similarly. Metroactive looks like a paid placement to promote the then upcoming seminar, nothing in there gives confidence that this is a source that ought to add towards notability. Being one of a half dozen practitioners featured by that NBC piece is impressive, as is the claim "Mother of Ayurveda in the west", I would consider that one a very weak contributor to notability. YogaChicago probably qualifies as another very weak contributor. Other sources, I don't think need discussing. The final sentence of this one is another very weak contributor to notability. That's somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of one significant coverage by my reckoning. If our subject worked exclusively in Nepal, 3/2 of a SIGCOV and I would vote keep appealing to systemic bias. As most of our subject's claim to notability comes from the USA, it shouldn't be too much ask to ask for 5/2 or even 3 SIGCOVs. Her impact/notability in Nepal seems to be grossly exaggerated, as I couldn't find any evidence of notice for her work in fertility or ayurveda or teaching or community healthcare work in Nepal or any mention of the fact that she's the first woman Ayurvedic physician of Nepal. From what I can tell, it's most likely the subject herself who's claimed she's the first. She probably actually is but there's no Nepali reliable sources that I can find saying that. She seems to be accomplished, but that has not made her Wikipedia notable as often is the case. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage in In search of the medicine Buddha (published by Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2001), already in the article (unfortunately not much is accessible on Google Books, so that will need access to a print copy); and in Three Fruits: Nepali Ayurvedic Doctors on Health, Nature, and Social Change (published by Rowman & Littlefield, 2019) [1] (the first search result in this book says "Dr. Shrestha, the main woman doctor of chapter 6" - not all of chapter 6 is viewable, though). There is also some coverage in Tantric Healing in the Kathmandu Valley: A Comparative Study of Hindu and Buddhist Spiritual Healing Traditions in Urban Nepalese Society (published by Book Faith India, 1998) [2] and Culture and the Environment in the Himalaya (published by Routledge, 2009) [3]. These sources include additional information, including that she was made a supervisor of another hospital in Kathmandu, the Dhanawantari Ayurveda Hospital. The Himalayan Times mention found by the previous editor could also be added. Many of the sources in the article are not independent, being interviews, announcements or from places she works, but independent coverage does exist - most of it about her work in Nepal, rather than in the West. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first book of highly questionable merit is already in the article. Now, neither Angela Dietrich is a scholar nor Book Faith India is a publication house of repute, effectively rendering the source unreliable. And in the Routledge book, there is a mere name-drop about Sarita (being put to the charge of a hospital); please read WP:SIGCOV. The one from Rowman Littlefield profiles 6 doctors in the 6th chapter, of which she is one. ∯WBG^converse 14:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did say that the first book is already in the article: I consider it SIGCOV, and I would not say that it is "of highly questionable merit". As for another author not being a scholar: I am not aware of a requirement for authors of books to be scholars, and I am not sure how you know that this author does not meet whatever definition of "scholar" you are using. Book Faith India seems now to be Pilgrims Book House, and it does seem reputable. I didn't say that Culture and the Environment in the Himalaya has SIGCOV; I said that it had "some" coverage, including additional information. Per WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I would not consider the information there "trivial", even though it's not in depth. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crow is a TrueBeliever and much of his works will fall under the purview of WP:PSCI. [Placeholder for more stuff about David Crow]

By scholar, I mean someone who has a track record of publication in peer-reviewed media or is employed as a faculty in a relevant field or has academic training in relevant fields. Please prove the same, in your case.

As to BFI, my source mentions it to be a foreign branch of PBH (which seem to have been puchased from The Order of Pilgrims Book Shop, by some Rama Tiwari). At any case, quoting the relevant parts:- ....Pilgrims Book House utilized the opportunity to expand its offices in Nepal and then took to a market, which was a perennial favorite of the spiritually inclined....Thus, Book Faith India (BFI) was founded in Delhi in a non-descript street, with some help from a local publisher and, yes, a cook.... However, the quality of the publications varied across the two countries. In a bid to quickly gain hold over a saturated sector, BFI was forced to sacrifice with much of its planned editorial process. An extraordinarily large amount of pilgrim-tales were published but failed to be much economical. Sudha tells me that it was around this time, PBH aggressively pursued the handicrafts and postcard business, to make up for the loss in revenues.... "Nepal -- pilgrims, tales and a publisher", The Hindu, 7 Sep. 1994, Rema Bhaskar, Pg-undetermined.

∯WBG^converse 16:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response- ∯WBG, there are numerous and ample published research papers that have been cited and were done by the subject with her peers that can be found here on Google Scholar. I will add to the article any that are relevant to further show notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorAuthor, different Sarita 1. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will verify that. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWP:SIGCOV is established when the subject is reviewed in a more cursory manner.Catorce2016 (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page is mere promotion for a healer. Persuasive, reliable sources are lacking.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really struggled to find multiple reliable secondary sources about the subject, even looking in Engish-language Nepali sources. Most sources seem to be primary sources or event announcements, or from new age publications in which sourcing can be...questionable. I did find this one from Metroactive, but, aside from a brief mention in Prevention magazine (a major source but if we had a Wikipedia article for every medical professional mentioned in their magazine we'd run out of bandwidth) about eggs, I can't see how she passes GNG for inclusion in English Wikipedia at this time. I'm all ears if we have Nepali sources!! Missvain (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Missvain. Tidyied up this text and some refs, however, best I could find was the Prevention (magazine) piece which is not really about her, and feels like a press-release (e.g she calls hereself "Mother of Ayurveda"; a term I could not find elsewhere). There is nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV here? I have an additional concern of a WP:PROMO and even a WP:WALLEDGARDEN in this topic area – E.g this BLP Vasant Lad, and his now AfD'ed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Madonna Institute. There is no WP:PRESERVE or WP:NOTPAPER here as her works are so little recognised outside of "trade books"/"trade blogs" in her topic area. I get an uneasy feeling that Wikipedia is being used here by followers of this topic to build their credibility? Few of these US-active practioners, Sarita Shrestha included, are reaching any form of mainstream US national/regional media, and yet we have so many WP articles? Britishfinance (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seeing the subject - an author and a ~~medical doctor and OB/GYN~~ physician who also ~~practices~~ teaches in the United States - referred to as a "healer" and a "quack" in an AFd is not only inaccurate but also disconcerting. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Know what is even more disconcerting? Your mind-boggling incompetence. ∯WBG^converse 06:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AuthorAuthor, she's not allowed to practice in the US, and the fact that you'd confuse her profession with the real OB-GYN all the more justifies my use of the word "quack".¹ Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a licenced medical doctor in the US. Britishfinance (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She teaches in the U.S. I corrected the word "practices" to "teaches" in my comment above. Calling me "incompetent" by another editor (not you) is disruptive and unproductive. Thus, I will no longer be participating in this AFd discussion. I stand by my !vote to keep. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2020 (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.