Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagnostics of Karma

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 keep. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnostics of Karma

[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)

Sources are affiliated. Significance is not shown. --Алёна Пескова (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many independent and authoritative sources in the article Лазарев, Сергей Николаевич (парапсихолог) - they can easily be moved to the article. Unambiguously leave the article. The books have been translated into more than 1.5 dozen languages of the world, published in multi-million copies. Uchastnik1 (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Russian sources are certainly enough for, e.g., WP:BOOKCRIT. (Being widely translated or published in big runs doesn't automatically confer notability to a book but it almost always goes hand in hand with a very easy pass of BOOKCRIT.) It looks like the article has some POV problems based on the Russian version flagging it as pseudoscience, but that's irrelevant to a deletion debate. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 17:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination. @Алёна Пескова: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources - while not in English - are sufficient to pass notability for books, WP:BOOKCRIT as mentioned above. There is also a critical page in English. -- Whiteguru (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which sources, exactly, directly cover the book itself vs. the author's oeuvre? Note that the Russian Wikipedia cited above doesn't have a dedicated article for the book—only its author's biography article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Czar - I answer your question: the following books describe exactly the books "Diagnostics of Karma":

- Фесенкова Л. В. (2008). "Проблема общей теории здоровья: традиционные и нетрадиционные концепции" (PDF). Здоровье как проблема естественных и биомедицинских наук (PDF). Философия науки, вып. 13 (500 экз ed.). М.: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences. pp. 221–243. ISBN 978-5-9540-0102-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help);

- Andrey Kuraev (1997). "«Диагностика кармы» и диагностика совести (гл. 23 р. IV «Буддизм и христианство» т. 1 «Религия без Бога»)". Сатанизм для интеллигенции: (О Рерихах и Православии): в 2 т. (PDF). Vol. 1: Религия без Бога, т. 2: Христианство без оккультизма. М.: Московское Подворье Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius : Отчий дом. ISBN 5-7676-0082-1.;

- Гарицын А. С., Медведев Т., Калашникова Т. (1999). "«Диагностика кармы», или «Поцелуй Иуды»". «Четыре ответа на приглашение в ад» (10000 экз ed.). СПб.: Диоптра. ISBN 5853250280. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link);

I also think that in the Russian Wikipedia, an article about books "Diagnostics of Karma" can be created in the near future, since there is every reason for this according to the criteria of significance. --Uchastnik1 (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my machine translations but doesn't the first source not go into depth about Диагностика кармы? It looks like it's more about Lazarev's theories than this book itself. There seems to be plenty more sources on the author. In general, it's better to cover an author's works within their biography and to only split out summary style when warranted by an overabundance of secondary sources. Would it make sense here to repurpose this article into one about the author? czar 08:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source describes Lazarev's theories, set out precisely in the books "Diagnostics of Karma", where the text is accompanied by links to these particular books, and at the end of the text of the source there are books "Diagnostics of Karma". I also think that both Lazarev himself and the books "Diagnostics of Karma" correspond to independent criteria of significance. You will also forgive my machine translation. --Uchastnik1 (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mark Zakharov viewed the book "Diagnostics of Karma" in his program on nationwide television (1994): Interview with S. N. Lazarev in M. Zakharov's program "Serpentine" (6.10.1994) on YouTube --Uchastnik1 (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translation (for colleagues who do not speak Russian) from an interview with Mark Zakharov: "Sergey Nikolaevich Lazarev is the author of the wonderful book "Diagnostics of Karma". Here, I highly recommend reading it. The book was published in a normal, rather modest, circulation, but then replicated in a pirated manner, which speaks of its indisputable merits and the great interest it arouses. Everything else, in addition to all the other merits of the book, there is one more quality that I have not met before when you come across the word "karma" - that there is some kind of inextricable connection with our Christian worldview, with Orthodox values, and very accurately, so to speak, interpreted and, so to speak, explained this is the unity of some discoveries of Eastern philosophy and our native Orthodoxy. Sergey Nikolaevich, before we turned on the camera, he demonstrated some of his amazing ability to read information, he can do it, he understands it, and he said something about me that, of course, amazed me (...)". --Uchastnik1 (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that as of the time of the author's program "Serpentine" on October 6, 1994, Mark Zakharov was also (at the same time) a member (one of) the Commission on State Prize of the Russian Federation in the field of literature and art under the President of the Russian Federation, appointed from January 22 1992 (and until June 23, 2004) in accordance with the section "Composition of the Commission on State Prize of the Russian Federation in the field of literature and art under the President of the Russian Federation" "Regulations on State Prizes of the Russian Federation in the field of literature and art", approved by the Order of the President of the Russian Federation No. 26-рп of January 22, 1992 "On State Prizes of the Russian Federation in the field of literature and art", where, in accordance with the Regulations, the functions of the Commission (as well as its members) included consideration of works of literature and art submitted for competition State Prize, and the adoption of appropriate decisions on them by (personal) voting. --Uchastnik1 (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am always wary of giving a platform to pseudoscience, but this appears to be barely notable, with enough sources to place it in context. Archrogue (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BOOKCRIT. Wm335td (talk) 20:47, 10 September 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.