Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forrest 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Forrest Yoga

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Previously speedily deleted twice. ~90% of references are by the own author. Well written puff piece which used references irrelevant to subject. One interview about the creator which could make the creator notable, but this yoga is not. Requesting WP:SALT. Curb Chain (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete & SALT Obvious self-promotion piece; fails WP:SELFPUB. Of note it appears the inventor of "Forrest Yoga" also wrote the blog on HuffPost concerning her own involvement with "members of the 48th Fighter Wing (48 FW) of the USAF" which is clearly WP:COI, and for that matter completely unverifiable since no proper sourcing is listed for the internal military contacts for verification of participation, hence failing WP:SOURCES and becomes WP:NOTRELIABLE.  All-in-all, with (2) prior speedy deletes and obvious issues with the sincerity of authorship, concur with request for WP:SALT. Яεñ99 (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excatcly. That huffing post piece is written BY her!  It's not a reliable source.Curb Chain (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added article from Colorado Military Armed services News piece to verify work with Military. Please let me know what else you would like me to change to improve this article. User:NerudaP — Nerudap (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please note that what differentiates Forrest yoga is that it focuses on Western lifestyles and originates in the US rather than elsewhere and that it does not focus on Indian traditions. Therefore, it is unique and noteworthy. I can remove Huff Post piece on Military if you wish. Pleae let me know how else to adjust article.

Thanks.User:NerudaP —Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That Colorado Military Armed services News piece didn't discuss your yoga indepth. Please read up on our policies if you want to improve your article and note that if the topic is not notable (cf. WP:N) it should not be on wikiepdia so references that are tangentially related to the subject of the article will not be reason to keep it.Curb Chain (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A lengthy, in-depth article at the New York Times is kind of a presumption of notability right there. Add significant items at the Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Chicago Tribune, etc., and I have to wonder, how much more do we need before we acknowledge notability? --MelanieN (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – This topic clearly passes WP:GNG per:
 * The New York Times article
 * Boston Globe article
 * Chicago Tribune article
 * Miami Herald article
 * Tampa Bay Tribune article
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The articles redirect to advertisements, or "personal pieces" written by someone in the context Everyday living discussions and these are not stated in a neutral pro/con fashion and fail the WP:NPOV test. There is no scientific support that a "new or improved" form of anything exists, only personal statements, and since Wiki doesn't support original research the assertion that something new has been developed fails the WP:NOR test as well. Яεñ99 (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These articles are NOT advertisements. They are staff-written articles in Reliable Sources. Whether or not there is any scientific support for this process or its claims is irrelevant; Wikipedia has lots of articles on things that have no scientific support (e.g. astrology) but are notable nevertheless. What is relevant is whether the system has been given substantial coverage in independent reliable sources - which it plainly has. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Though the motivations for exposure can be appreciated, when checking the links please note one dead-ends into an advertisement, one dead-ends into an archived article that cannot be reviewed, one from the HuffingtonPost is a blog entry and fails WP:NOTBLOG, and the others are interest pieces, etc that demonstrate an inclination for media exposure - per WP:FORUM, Wikipedia is not a repository for inventions, research, or essays. Wikipedia is not a forum for WP:SOAPBOX addressing advocacy, opinions, or self-promotion. Also, Wikipedia is not just a collection of links, and many of the added "references" and suppositions provide little or no additional support & fail the WP:LINKFARM test and do not contribute to encyclopedic content.  Again, please note the very introductory sentence Forrest Yoga is a modern yoga style created by and named for Ana T. Forrest fails the WP:NOR test boldly, and due to her own authorship as demonstrated in the above comments, the article is also a primary WP:COI source. Яεñ99 (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We are apparently talking about two different things. You are talking about the sources provided in the article; Northamerica and I are talking about AVAILABLE sources which we found in a search. The question for a deletion discussion is not about how the article is written; it is about whether the subject of the article is notable, regardless of whether that notability is currently reflected in the article. If I have time later I will see if I can add some of those newly cited Reliable Sources to the article; but whether or not they are added, they exist, and they demonstrate notability by providing significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed Military section and Huff Post after review of your comments. Inside Wikipedia, there are at least two styles-- Jivamukti (with one person as founder) and Bikram (again, one person as founder) which are presented as modern yoga disciplines.  The central question  seems to be that if there is one person as a founder of a discipline, is it self-promotion for that person to discuss her work or is it a discussion of a notable new practice? That's where the reliable sources seem to weigh in on the side of Forrest Yoga.  Also, it does not seem right to load the burden of earlier postings on FOrrest Yoga that were deleted onto this current entry. Thank you so much for helping to improve this entry. User talk: Nerudap  —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We could also add Iyengar Yoga to that list. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop editing the article in an attempt to make the article most appeal to all critics in an attempt to save the article from deletion. Please take a look at our protocol as deleting information without good reason is not helpful.Curb Chain (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Curb Chain on this: We're here to discuss whether or not an article should be kept, not change it in hopes to make it keepable. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. Changing an article while it is under discussion, to improve it and make it more evident that it is a "keeper," is absolutely in line with Wikipedia tradition. Please see WP:HEY. See also Article Rescue Squadron. And please take another look at the article now that I have rewritten it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm don't completely disagree with MelanieN, I just agree with Curb Chain on this point. The article may have been "cleaned up," but now it's missing a lot of things that make this style of yoga distinctive from other styles, like Basic Moves and Native Medicine, (cf: Universal Principles of Alignment and Shiva-Shakti Tantra in Anusara Yoga). It's just moving closer to being a stub rather than a good article. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the "basic moves" section because it seemed to me to be an example of WP:NOTHOWTO. Are such detailed instructions normally included in articles about yoga? I also deleted the "Rainbow Hoop" stuff about a native American healer, because it was self-referenced and seemed more promotional than informative. Again, is it usual to include lengthy self-referenced links to native medicine in such articles? I am really asking; I am not an expert in yoga or on Wikipedia policy about yoga. Mainly, I wanted to emphasize the content that is Reliably Sourced and decrease the article's dependence on self-referential citations. These changes seemed to me to bring the article closer to general Wikipedia guidelines, but anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to restore the relevant sections. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Recognized by North America's foremost publication on yoga, Yoga Journal in their [Guide to American Yoga Styles. http://www.yogajournal.com/lifestyle/2984] Don't like the sources? Swap in-credible sources for more credible sources. Don't like the subject matter? Well, Wikipedia is not here to please, it's here as a resource for people to write about things that exist in our universe. Forrest Yoga is just one of those things that exists. Morganfitzp (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This link you give does not discuss the yoga indepth. None of those yogas in that list (the reference that you gave) is notable without on-its-own, indepth coverage.Curb Chain (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How in-depth is in-depth? There are few books like Light On Yoga out there (Mr. Iyengar's tome that defined the system he named after himself) to validate the many popular styles of yoga that exist in the world. Other articles on Wikipedia—articles about rock bands for example—have little more than a few blurbs from online journals and fanzines to back them up. There are other sources too: Where rock bands have concerts, yoga styles have classes. Where rock bands have albums, yoga teachers make DVDs and write books to codify their styles. Curb Chain, if you really want Wikipedia to be a place where only the most well-known things are valued and allowed webspace, you have your work cut out for you—Wikipedia is full of articles about musicians who will never chart on Billboard's Top 40. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment OK, all, take another look. I just did a pretty brutal rewrite. I deleted a lot of the puffery, unencyclopedic material and how-to stuff per WP:NOT, and I added three external Reliable Source sources. More could be added. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the shaky sources. When this debate settles down I'll work on getting those details back in with more reliable sources (but also note that "reliable" sources get things wrong too—the Houston Chronicle said that Ana Forrest was based in CAlifornia when she actually lives on an island off the coast of Washington). Morganfitzp (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where she LIVES may be less relevant than where her clinic/studio/headquarters/whatever is. Besides the "California" references in the Houston Chronicle, multiple online sources suggest there is something called the Forrest Yoga Institute in Santa Monica, California. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Forrest Yoga website lists Carnation, Washington as its headquarters. She lives near there, not California. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? You did a better job than I did of searching that website, then; I spent quite a while looking for a location and couldn't find one. In any case, it is not necessary to list a location if the available information is ambiguous, as it appears to be. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. article provides context around a unique and distinctive style of yoga that is taught under the name Forrest Yoga in studios around the world. Forrest yoga is a recognized practice in the same way that Ashtanga or Iyengar are recognized.User talk:NerudaP —Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ashtanga was never created by anyone. It is a style of yoga; specifically when asanas are done sequentially.Curb Chain (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course "ashtanga yoga" was coined and created by someone. There should be an entry for Forrest Yoga. It shouldn't be overly favorable (biased) but it is a form of yoga that more and more people are doing every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaterese (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)  — Anaterese (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * To echo Anaterese, the term "Ashtanga" was, at some point, created by someone, and first recorded by Patanjali in his Yoga Sutas (~2nd century BCE) as an "eight-limbed path" similar to Buddhism's Eightfold Path. The modern system called Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga was codified by K. Pattabhi Jois from sequences given to him by his teacher T. Krishnamacharya, and until the end of his life, Jois told his students that these were ancient sequences that remained unchanged for thousands of years.  Recent research reveals that T. Krishnamacharya created these sequences himself from a mix of sun salutations, classical seated postures, and a Danish gymnastics regimen that was in vogue with the British Army (see Mark Singleton's 2010 book Yoga Body: The Origins of the Modern Posture Practice" and also the manual Primary Gymnastics'' from 1920), and while Jois stayed in Mysore and continued to teach Brahmin boys his series, Krishnamacharya moved on to teach somewhere and something else entirely.  Ashtanga is a made-up style of yoga, as are its derivatives like Power Yoga and Vinyasa.  To write about them here is not advertising or spam; it is information, always changing and in a constant state of open dialogue. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Folks, can we stick to the point here? This discussion is about Forrest Yoga, not about Ashtanga. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ashtanga yoga may historically been the A, B, C, D, Advanced C, Advanced D series, but the element that is common between them is that asanas need to be easily practiced from one into another. I've done yoga where the inhale is one asana, and the exhale is the next one in a series.  The history of yoga as you pointed out is a sequence of asanas developed by K. Pattabhi Jois.  But when I say ashtanga, this is simply a short way of saying vinyasa yoga.Curb Chain (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. All yoga is one yoga and at the same time many yogas. Patanjali wrote four padas and outlined the ashtanga (eight limbs) derived from many centuries of practitioners before him. In the many centuries since the meaning and purpose of these yogas—and the words describing them—has changed, branched out and pluralized. In the West, "Ashtanga" has come to mean Jois's system of asana, to classicists it is Patanjali's philosophy of which asana is but one part. Today we have the freedom to choose our yogas and to write about all these yogas here. Why censor that freedom and try to hide that people practice a modern form of yoga? Forrest, Jivamukti, Power, Bikram, Iyengar, Kripalu, Anusara, vinyasa—there's space for them all and more on Wikipedia. Morganfitzp (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2012 (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.