Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kriya Sharir

Kriya Sharir

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

I am dubious about the notability of this topic. Of the only two references offered, one is to an article written by the author of this page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... the author of this page is also listed as an author on the other reference. The first ref proposes that it would be a sensible thing that 'allopaths' teach AYUSH to postgrads? wut? Roxy the dog. bark 17:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find very little about this and the simple use of the term pejorative and inaccurate term Allopath makes my hackles rise!!! This is a typical exemple of alternative medicine trying to homogenise terms to put homeopathy on the same level as "allopathy". The main page on Ayurveda does not mention this branch so I doubt that it can be that important. Maybe suggest that the author adds a section about "his" branch first. --Domdeparis (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: We have now added many relevant citations and have removed all ambiguous terms. Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery refers to this subject. We don't mind if the page gets deleted, but we are curious to know why the wiki community is against alternative medicine. Why is 'Ayurveda' Page is a part of a series on Alternative and pseudo-medicine? When Wiki can include all sorts of deviated forms of Yoga into Wikipedia pages, (for example, Dog Yoga, why can't it include Ayurveda? Both these streams of knowledge originated in India and both share many theories and principles in common.

When I used the term 'important', one of the users asked me to remove it. I understand the reason very well: it may reflect my bias. But when the Wikipedia runs a title saying that "this article is a pert of the series on Pseudo-medicine", does it not reflect the bias this entire community has?