Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social cycle theory (Sarkar)

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. —dgies^t_c 06:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social cycle theory (Sarkar)

)

Doesn't seem notable: no Google Print refs, about 10 Google refs. See Talk:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. This article should be either deleted as non-notable or merged to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, and certainly there is no ground for creator's argument that Social cycle theory article should be deleted and replaced with this one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with some merging possible. For the sake of keeping the biography of Sarkar more biographical, perhaps Ananda Marga is the better merge target. --Pjacobi 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive utilization theory. --Pjacobi 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a ridiculous proposal. The Social Cycle Theory is the name of a self contained theory of social dynamics. The theory has been written up in a #1 NY Times bestseller,

PROUT. This is disconcerting behaviour, especially as it involves Piotrus, a supposed Administrator of Wikipedia. Hasta Nakshatra 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep and rename Social Cycle Theory - after the other entry presently using this title has been renamed something else, e.g. Survey of the Cyclical Conceptions of Social and Historical Process. Budfin 10:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page has no references, so there is no way of validating the content of the article, although this is not actually a reason to delete it. It's a fairly well-written article, however the name of the article is weird. "Social cycle theory (Sarkar)" is not conventional. Why is the title not "Law of Social Cycle" considering that that is the term actually used throughout the article. JenLouise 04:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The citations and references have been given. Hasta Nakshatra 09:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good article. Name should be Social Cycle Theory.Ramayan 10:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC) User's first edit since August 30, 2006.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of the social sciences-related deletions. -- Pjacobi 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of society topics-related deletions. -- Hasta Nakshatra 09:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Weak keep under the present title or conceivably merge into the article on the guru. Pseudo social science, but since it is represented by conventionally-published books it is notable. The article will of course need to incorporate some attempt at a NPOV. There are many theories of social and economic cycles and the suggestion above to call in merely social cycle theory is an imposition. DGG 00:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a book is notable, but the theory doesn't seem to be cited other than in few sources... move to book article is the best I can think in terms of keep.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article, and there is a bibliography. Only editing is necessary. Also, I have a long argument for keeping the article on "prout" which is 100% relevant to this article as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive utilization theory. Aschoeff 01:49, 5 May 2007 (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.