Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasa shastra

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. Discussion of a possible merge can and should continue on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rasa shastra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article makes scientific and medical claims, so should satisfy WP:MEDRS. In fact, it has remained unsourced for three years, apart from a well-sourced criticism section, so does not even meet WP:RS. There is sufficient sourced material to make an article on "Criticism of Rasa shastra", but none for anything more. I have done a Google search in an attempt to find reliable sources, but not one site would appear to meet our standards for reliable sourcing, particularly the high standards required for those making medical claims. RexxS (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections by the nominator: There's no doubt that the article is in a much more encyclopedic state now than it was a week ago, and thanks are due to the editors who have worked on it. One new source, the "Scientific basis for Ayurvedic therapies" seems a good find. Unfortunately I can't see the previews via my local Google books, so I'm in no position to judge whether that source is sufficient to build an entire article upon, or whether the information would be best as part of a larger article. I leave that decision to the good sense of my fellow editors. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Put this thing out of its misery before some poor fool reads it and doses himself with mercury. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with Ayurveda. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but Redirect to Mercury_(element)#Medicine. It's been stubified but the previous version was extremely irresponsible, including such unsourced goofiness as "Mercury is also said to give a firm physique, a stable mind, and to be the best destroyer of disease. Furthermore, It is considered holy because it is the semen of Lord Shiva." Please, nuke this from orbit before some moron decides to cure their head cold with a mercury god-sperm cocktail and their next-of-kin blames Wikipedia for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.

• Keep. This would appear to be an article about a highly notable branch of traditional medical folklore or religious belief. I am finding some substantial sources on this. "Rasa shastra" generally seems to be the name for the native Indian tradition of alchemy, and as such not only a valid but a needed article subject. POV problems were best dealt with as they have been - by stubbing the article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your 'substantial' source is self-published by Lulu.com, thus not a source we should use. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Did not notice the publisher. On the other hand this book from CRC Press has an entire chapter on the subject. I'd add that I don't believe that WP:MEDRS really applies to this subject, either, and might be considered an example of Western or scientistic bias. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whereas my belief is that MEDRS applies to an article containing phrases such as "a sacred residue that may be used as a medicine", "generate therapeutic properties", "has a soothing effect on the body, prevents disease and old age", and so on. In addition I don't believe that hedging such claims with weasel words such as 'traditionally' or 'allegedly' exempts the article from MEDRS-compliance either. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. Those claims were rightly edited out as unsourced, POV-pushing, and promotional. On the other hand, I've expanded the article with information I was able to find without a great deal of effort, describing its methods of preparation of the substances and its historical relationship with medical alchemy. When the methods and materials are described as a matter of fact, it becomes increasingly obvious that this subject is not one to which WP:MEDRS applies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly irresponsible, as well as violating basic standards regarding medical claims etc. It is entirely possible that we need an article on 'traditional medical folklore in India', but this isn't the way to cover the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think it's our place to judge the "irresponsibility" of the claims of this practice; only whether it exists and is notable enough to support a stand alone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the stub or redirect - but delete the nonsense about actual health claims. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not convinced that rasa shastra or the reasoning behind it could ever be verifiable. It's also already mentioned on Ayurveda immediately after the line "Minerals, including sulfur, arsenic, lead, copper sulfate and gold are also consumed as prescribed". That doesn't sound especially healthy to me, either, but it's important to know in the context of ayurvedic treatments - especially if someone is about to begin one without knowing what they're getting into. Several Times (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Again, the question of whether its methods are rational, or mad as a hatter, is beyond the scope. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've expanded the article with a brief synopsis of information gleaned from the preview pages in the Mishra book. When the methods used are set forth in a matter of fact way, I don't think anybody's going to actually mistake this for anything that relates to Western medicine. Even if you consider this a fringe subject (and given the nature of the subject we probably ought to tread lightly before even making that claim) it seems to be a notable part of that practice. With subjects like this, the issue is not whether they are scientifically verifiable, but whether they veriviably exist. I'm convinced it does. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire per LuckyLouie. Interchangeable|talk to me 21:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is notable and referenced. However it requires some copy-editing for style and neutrality. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Rasa Shshtra also called Rasa Vidhya is an ancient science, a branch of auyrveda, which deals with compositions of mercury. The article should tagged for improvement. I have added some citation.Jethwarp (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is another good reason why this subject is unsuitable for Wikipedia. It's a magnet for junk from unreliable sources like http://www.neterapublishing.com/ and http://www.shrifreedom.org/ - why does anybody think this improves an article? "The way of the crucible" = SPS from lulu.com once more. It's taken less than a day for the stub (which was worth keeping) to transform into a problem article again. --RexxS (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for protection, not deletion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've just discovered the article rasayana, which also deals with the branch of alchemy practised in India. The two articles may be redundant, though I don't see much duplication in actual content in the current versions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There have been many news reports about the problem of mercury-containing ayurvedic remedies, and I have no doubt scientific papers exist as well. This article is appalling, but the topic is notable, if only for being one of the most dangerous practices in more-or-less mainstream alternative medicine. However, since few non-fringe editors exist in the Ayurveda topic, I'd suggest Merging to Ayurveda. 86.182.190.156 (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Ayurveda I do not see sources that make it notable on its own.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I'd say protect to prevent fringe stuff from being readded. The study of this has separate departments at prestigious universities such as the Banaras Hindu University ([1]) and is for what it's worth governed by the Ministry of Health, just like standard allopathic medical education. This article seems to be usable as a reference -- The Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine appears to have some editorial oversight, but someone with a better understanding of these ought to check it out. The claims made on treatments etc ought to be subject to WP:MEDRS, but the topic itself is "a historical tradition" and ought to be treated as such. —SpacemanSpiff 06:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The CRC chapter , among others, is convincing as a RS. The queestion of a merge with rasayana needs to be discussed on the talk p. of one of the articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - now appears to be balanced and well sourced following re-write. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2011 (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.