Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral yoga (Satchidananda)


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk  18:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Integral yoga (Satchidananda)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Rationale: Does not meet wp:notability, content is mostly self created WP:NOTSOAPBOX, clearly promotional material with puffery. also inherent importance cannot be claimed WP:INHERITORG, WP:reference are mostly selfsourced, also note the books & magazince sourced are also self published! Shrikanthv (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdraw by nominator, as new notablitity information found and puffery can be reworked Shrikanthv (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment In defense of this article, Satchidananda-Ashram didn't self-publish the magazines, books, or articles used in creating this text. The New York times, documentaries, interviews, and other first-hand sources are used. This is a Yoga style that reaches global populations, and needs to be differentiated from Arubindo's teaching. Joellepearson (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 17:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment As far as I can see, it's a huge organisation, which is mentioned in other publications. So, it seems notable. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment What other information do you need in order for this to be removed from the "considered for deletion" queue? Thanks! Joellepearson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 27 October 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.