Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Herbal Encyclopedia: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content deleted Content added


 

Line 17: Line 17:

:”’Weak Delete”’ – It can be included on the author’s page. [[User:LDW5432|LDW5432]] ([[User talk:LDW5432|talk]]) 17:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

:”’Weak Delete”’ – It can be included on the author’s page. [[User:LDW5432|LDW5432]] ([[User talk:LDW5432|talk]]) 17:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

*”’Delete”’ as failing to meet [[WP:NBOOK]]. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 18:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

*”’Delete”’ as failing to meet [[WP:NBOOK]]. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 18:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

* ”’Redirect to [[Acharya Balkrishna]]”’: [[WP:ATD|ATD]] until better reviews/sources for this title can be found. [[User:Slgrandson|Slgrandson]] <small>([[User talk:Slgrandson|How’s my]] [[Special:Contributions/Slgrandson|egg-throwing coleslaw?]])</small> 21:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC) <!–VCB Slgrandson–>


Latest revision as of 21:49, 22 October 2025

World Herbal Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book for a pseudoscientific field of alternative medicine (Ayurveda#Classification and efficacy), does not meet WP:NBOOK, there is no significant coverage in sources, I could only find press releases and promotional sources upon looking. This article is also promotional, whitewashes this pseudoscience into Wikipedia and perhaps could be a product of UPE. Zalaraz (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Book review by The Times of India: [1]. Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That book review does not name a reviewer and it is published by WP:TOI, I read this so called review during my search and it is nothing more than a press release making exceptional claims. Zalaraz (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree on this. Even the film taskforce doesn’t really recommend using their reviews. This might have been usable if it had a named staff member, but attributing it to the general lifestyle desk does make it fairly suspicious. If I remember correctly, the paper has had an issue with undisclosed paid advertisements and AI generated articles. Paid advertisements aren’t great and typically invalidate a source unless an outlet is very well considered, but undisclosed ones are always going to make an outlet unreliable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 12:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack “Extracted from World Herbal Encyclopedia by Acharya Balkrishna, published under Patanjali Divya Prakashan” is printed at the bottom of that article. I had some suspicions about AI writing and ran the article through GPTzero and it gave me 100% probability of it being AI written [2]. This reflects very badly on both TOI and the book itself. Zalaraz (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Balkrishna, the author, where the book is mentioned as an WP:ATD. Katzrockso (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – It can be included on the author’s page. LDW5432 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top