Talk:Kamlesh Patel (Daaji)

Proposed name change

While working on this article for improving the citations by more appropriate and secondary sources, i note that the "popular name" of the person in title is "Daaji" while his original name is "Kamlesh D Patel". This popular name Daaji appears in the lead section as well as in infobox. Also in majoriy of references his name appears as "Kamlesh Patel and Daaji". i therefore feel that the name of the article should be changed to "Kamlesh Patel (Daaji)". On going through the wikipedia naming policy, i find that this renaming is appropriate in view of the following: Recognizability -:He is more commonly known by the name Daaji and Kamlesh Patel. Naturalness -:Most people would look for the word Daaji when trying to find his page or his name Kamlesh Patel. Precision -:Combining Daaji with Kamlesh Patel would make it unambiguous. Current name of the page brings ambiguity with other notable figures with similar name like Kamlesh Patel the Barron. Conciseness -:It is as long as no more than necessary. All though Daaji alone would be most concise but I think from recognizability and consistency point of views, having Kamlesh Patel in title will also be good. Consistency -:In the reliable sources we see both Daaji and Kamlesh Patel getting used to refer to him. Thus i propose to do the name change if there is no objection.

Guidelines on Naming Articles Consider this is a required reading for those working on new articles or renaming any article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title

LoveAll (talk). 04:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible notability of The Heartfulness Way

@Bonadea: in response to this edit, why do you think this Hindustan Times bestseller list and this Asian Age review (plus maybe other refs, haven't checked) are not sufficient for WP:NBOOK#1? Pinging Ensconce, who reverted the redirection (but please don't do this without an edit summary in future) and David notMD, who suggested at the Teahouse that this is the right forum for discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think one single review, focusing more on touting the system of meditation than on the book itself, makes the book meet WP:NBOOK, and appearing on the Hindustan Times Nielsen list is not an automatic guarantee of notability either. The article about the book was created and relentlessly puffed up by representatives of the SRCM, the organisation that Patel leads. This would not absolutely prevent there being an article about the book, but it is in fact almost impossible to find any independent coverage of it. (The source used in this article, for instance, reports from a press conference and more than two thirds of the text consists of quotes or paraphrased quotes.) --bonadea contributions talk 16:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If the issue is WP:FRINGE then I can see that the article perhaps shouldn't remain standing without clarification of medical consensus (I'm not fit to judge this in any way). If the issue is unreliability of Hindustan Times (my knowledge of Indian sources is weak) then I understand. But if that is not the issue then NBOOK#1 is very clear: we presumably a book notable if The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. An example would be one review and one bestseller list (as the rest of NBOOK#1 lays out). So I'm asking: how is NBOOK#1 not met? Or do you think it is met (and redirection is appropriate for another reason)? — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I did some research on this book. Looks like that the article as it was existing before being reverted, was poorly sourced. One of the references was a review published in the Yoga Journal Singapore, which is a broken link. I found out that this magazine's site has changed and that review is now here : review in yogahood. I also see a review published in The Hindu, which is the 2nd most popular English newspaper in India. The review can be found here the-heartfulness-way-an-accesible-and-effective-journey. Additionaly these are some more, what appears to be independent reviews - publication in research gate, The Heartfulness Way: Heart-Based Meditations for Spiritual Transformation -this has an endorsement from Dr Sanjay Gupta, chief medial correspondent from CNN and an another review in sundayguardianlive.

Are these good references? Do they indicate notability?--Ensconce (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sunday Guardian Live looks to be reliable so this would count as another review. The Hindu is reliable (see its entry at WP:RSP) but interviews aren't independent of the subject so don't count towards notability. Bookshelf looks to be a review aggregator, so it's not reliable but some of the reviews it quotes could possibly be (but endorsement by a CNN figure isn't). Yogahood looks like a blog post by a company with a broad profit incentive to promote yoga-related content, so dubious reliability and independence. Research Gate source looks to come from Prabuddha Bharata, and I can't easily establish its reliability. So I'll discount that last source from my analysis and I count two reviews, one bestseller list (that's 150% of the way to NBOOK#1) and an interview that can be used to flesh out the article. — Bilorv (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the good analysis Bilorv, it helped me to learn something new from your response. Can I rework on this article and add these references? Is that ok?--Ensconce (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You have just had a very good explanation of how notability has not been shown. Why are you sodetermined to create an article about this particular book? --bonadea contributions talk 17:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by that, Bonadea? I've just laid out why I think NBOOK#1 is met (and exceeded). — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have read this book but in a different language, a translated version. I found this book at par with the book by Robin Sharma 'The monk who sold His Ferrari'. The contents of the book will be of interest to the general public who have an inclination to yoga and meditation, hence, in my opinion, the book deserves a separate page in wiki. Someone who is not interested in yoga and meditation, obviously may not like this book or any information about the book.

Going by wiki guide lines, I can see it meeting NBOOK #1 for all these items: Review in Asian Age , Review in SGL, Review in Prabuddha Bharata and Best seller listing in HT Nielsen & Amazon, India. Incidentally, 'Prabuddha Bharata' is a magazine/publication with a history for more than a century! even Carl Jung's paper was published in it in the early 1930s.

This book was unveiled by the President of India himself and has endorsements from folks like James R Doty, M.D., Professor of Neurosurgery at Stanford University School of Medicine , Tim Ryan (OH) U.S. Representative, Dr. Varun Soni (from Univ of Southern California) and other dignified personalities across the world, so questioning on the notability of this book is a bit strange.

I recommend to revert the redirect and let this book have its own page in wiki. Xtalline (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Amazon "bestsellers" are not good sources, if I'm recalling correctly, and the endorsements don't go towards notability (though the Kovind thing can be mentioned because of the Deccan Chronicle article). I am inclined for us to restore this as an article proper with the given reliable references, if there are no objections. — Bilorv (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like no objections so far... looking forward to an authentic revert! Xtalline (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As per the discussion, restored the article for the book The Heartfulness Way. Also removed unreliable references and added the ones discussed above.--Ensconce (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The claims to notability are still tenuous and NBOOKS is clearly not met, but it is also not crystal clear to me that the book isn't notable, like it was when the article existed previous to redirecting. I have removed an inappropriate reference and some vague and promotional phrasing from the new article. The information about the president of India being at the book launch should also be removed since it is sourced only to a press release, and him being present does not make the book any more notable (per WP:NOTINHERITED). If there had been actual independent coverage of the book launch, it could maybe be included; the question is whether any such coverage exists.

An additional point: the Prabuddha Bharata review is not entirely independent, as the magazine reviews only those books where the publisher sends them two copies of the book. This doesn't mean that their reviews can't be included here, but it does nothing to indicate notability. --bonadea contributions talk 14:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Can we move discussion on "Possible notability of The Heartfulness Way" to The Heartfulness Way talk page?

Since discussions are related to The Heartfulness Way wiki article, can we move this section into the talk section of The Heartfulness Way article?--Ensconce (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)