Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blooming Lotus Yoga


 * 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted as G12 (the entire article is copied from various commercial yoga sites), as well as G11. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Blooming Lotus Yoga

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This doesn't quite meet the qualifications for speedy, but it should be deleted. The citations are all promotional/press release in nature, and the company does not appear notable. Agtx (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable, and spam. At least three different accounts have been used to promote BLY on Wikipedia -- (article creator),, and  -- the last two add ref spam links to the BLY website in other articles. The article as it is is written like a piece of spam and most if not all of the references are press releases or other promotional material that doesn't add to notability. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding more to my comment after reading other people's !votes. If you have some personal reason why you want this article to be kept then I don't know what to say to you. But if you're neutral and voted for keep, then hear me out. Some of the references used may sound like reliable sources with titles like "Yoga Journal" or "Creative Times" or "Infity House Magazine". But I wouldn't be so sure, and I've never heard of those sites. Myanmar Times does seem like a reliable source that can add to notability, but looking at that specific page I'm not so sure anymore. It's not written like a news piece or opinion piece, it's written like an advertisement. Maybe it is an advertisement.
 * The page in Yoga Journal? Also not a news piece or even a review, the text is written from the point of view of Blooming Lotus Yoga. It's a business listing/advert, and I don't think it adds to notability.
 * The Yoga Alliance advert/listing? Does not add to notability, even if that site happens to be a RS.
 * motherearthliving.com is possibly just a random website that can't add to notability, plus the article there is written by Lily Goncalves, who works for or is associated with BLY, as you can see from the namaste.tv ref (which also doesn't add to notability).
 * creativetimes.co.uk? Is that actually a reliable source because the name has the word "Times" in it? I don't think so. I don't have the time right now to do full checks on all of these websites so please correct me when I'm wrong, but the article itself is written like something from a personal development blog, not a legit journalistic source.
 * The namaste.tv page looks like a primary source and advert.
 * The keyc.com page: I'm pretty sure that site itself in general would qualify here as a reliable source, but that specific page looks suspiciously like a press release, what with the disclaimers in the beginning and end of the article, and the article itself appears to be written by someone representing BLY.
 * leisuredaily.com -- as far as I can tell it's just a random website.
 * The infinityhousemagazine.com page, it's really dubious to me that that site is a reliable source/can add to notability, and, again, the piece is written like a completely biased advertisement, not an honest opinion piece. Entries like these are are really suspicious in my opinion, like the site was paid to publish that piece on their website or the publisher had some other ulterior motive for posting that.
 * balispiritfestival.com - primary source, can't add to notability.
 * digitaljournal.com - the page clearly says it's a press release and there's no indication that that site itself is a reliable source.
 * And that's all. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Namaste TV," cited as a source is nothing more than a commercial website registered in the nation of Tuvalu. Do these spammers take us for fools? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - School appears to be internationally recognized based on the recently added third-party media, establishing notability. Links mentioned are not spam but are reliable resources. ShriKailasha (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC) — ShriKailasha (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The latest reference, a Myanmar Times page, is obviously an advertisement, not a journalistic piece or a review. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The page mentioned above is a review by a free-lance writer who has done other travel pieces. I found her at https://www.bing.com/search?q=Rachna+Sachasinh+myanmar&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is an advert. Spumuq (talq) 13:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article has several citations from reliable sources that are not reviews. It meets WP:GNG. The article is fairly well-documented, including references from newspapers far away from the subject's locations. As well, the article is recently added - give it some time to develop. Also suggest following WP:BEFORE, eg If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.SoulFlames (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — SoulFlames (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * But no amount of editing can save an article if the topic is non-notable. It looks to me like the author(s) looked for and found the best possible sources that exist out there, and they're not enough (if my above analysis of the sources is correct).
 * And I'm not seeing the well-documented parts, the article lists the company's services (the last three sections) and includes language like "the school offers an evolutionary integration of the sacred wisdom of yoga...", "... introducing a balanced, holistic and safe flow sequence" etc. Without all the puffery, the article would be three sentences long at best. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have some concerns about the votes from users and . Both are recently created accounts. Both have user pages that are only their signatures. All of the edits for both accounts are comments on this page or adding links on Yoga-related pages. Agtx (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Something weird going on here. :/ See: the last two !voters marking their votes as "minor" and not leaving any space or punctuation before the four tildes. (That's not enough evidence for anything so I'm not making any accusations, but it does look suspicious.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Though I agree that some of the language is "puffy" and recommend to (article creator) to clean up some of the text, I see no reason to delete the article. There is easily verified notability in the references cited. Google mentions them extensively and there is plenty of in-depth coverage in independent publications. I went through the list of references, and they offer enough sources with non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:GNGSarahKrauch (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me which parts of my analysis of the sources (see my comment above) are wrong? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The references are all different and they have been mentioned multiple times by very well known and respected publications and reliable sources. This organization has multiple international locations and the due to their locations in Asia media coverage maybe invisible to English-speaking researchers. The current number of references all indicate significant notability, as well as the significant number of fans on their social media sites. I agree that the article can be expanded in the future as more resources emerge. But currently I have found that there are enough credible references to give the necessary independent coverage required to meet WP:RSLord Subro (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "...mentioned multiple times by very well known and respected publications and reliable sources..." -- which are...? Also we would need extensive coverage, not "mentions". — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I am surprised to see this has been nominated as AfD. I do not see any real argument to delete. It meets WP:V and also meets WP:N; The organisation spans 2 countries and is well known in southeast Asia. They have significant involvement with accrediting centers and authoritative institutions in the field of yoga around the world. The subject of the article clearly meets WP:ORG. Legendarybroly (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Legendarybroly (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Should be speedid as G11. Article says nothing more than we have a business to offer,WP:NOTPROMOTION. BTW nice meeting of paid asian editors here, hi guys!--Ben Ben (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. FYI: I am not a "paid editor" nor Asian for that matter. I'm simply pointing out the obvious (i.e. this article meets the qualification criteria and should be given time to develop). It's actually very rude of you to bring race into this discussion. ShriKailasha (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This wasn't meant rude. For me Asia is a continent, not a race. Someone who has choosen an Indian sounding user name should know this.--Ben Ben (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Took the issue here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.