Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Engineering: A Yogi's Guide to Joy

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 no consensus. There's clear agreement here that this should not be deleted outright, which is the major decision that AfD has to make.

Beyond that, there's disagreement here about the relative importance of WP:NBOOK vs. WP:GNG, and how literally NBOOK should be interpreted. If people still feel this should be merged, that conversation can continue on the talk pages and if consensus emerges to do so, there's nothing preventing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Engineering: A Yogi's Guide to Joy

[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:NBOOK. ∯WBG^converse 19:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 19:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 19:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 19:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this book been received quite a bit of media attention. I can find it on the HT-Nielsen list [1] and seems to have been on the NYTimes bestsellers list [2]. I can find some book reviews as well such as [3]. As this is one of those "popular self-help" books, I believe there would be more reviews out there and I will have a look again.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief does not matter. One book review does not make the cut. Being on the best-sellers' list ain't a NBOOK passage. ∯WBG^converse 13:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that's an overtly literal reading of what constitutes a book's notability. Books can be notable though WP:GNG as well. If a book is being promoted though accompanying events, or translated into multiple languages, that does add to the book's notability. The reason why I quoted bestsellers list is because it includes books which have been selling well (in the US and India) and it is likely that there would be coverage about such books. Appearing on a bestsellers list (assuming it is a list by a reliable newspaper like NYTimes or HT) is one of the easiest ways to quantify how popular a book it.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked up the WP:NBOOK guideline and it says A book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list is non-trivial treatment if the list is notable or the list is published by a notable media outlet and the list is republished or covered by other reliable sources. If we go by this, the inclusion in these 2 bestseller lists should suffice
NYTimes bestsellers list for multiple weeks in multiple categories (health, religion, miscellaneous) [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

HT-Neilsen top-10 list (probably the most reliable list for India) - The book has been in the top10 for non-fiction. Google search link [9] since I don't want to past the individual links. There are 52 results, which means the book has been there in the list for 52 weeks. This is a pretty significant achievement.
Additionally, this book won the "popular non fiction" category of the Crossword Book Award [10] which adds to its significance.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jaggi Vasudev. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect make section in Jaggi Vasudev and redirect this page to there. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic does satisfy NBOOK. One non-trivial review plus one notable best-seller list is enough for that. The article is somewhat promotional, though, and needs to be pruned. Haukur (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the criteria at WP:NBOOK.4meter4 (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jaggi Vasudev. Agree with Hyperbolick's assessment. It is much more convenient to have a page on this book combined with the page on the author. DJRafe (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2019 (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.