Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kundalini Awakening


 * 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 Delete. This is a mixture of a SNOW delete and a G11 speedy delete (promotion of an opinion). (Note: Article was moved to Kundalini Awakening.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Add to that A10: content fork of Kundalini. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Kundalini Awakening

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Promo and soapboxing in the form of an essay. Night of the Big Wind talk  11:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Madam/sir,

I am the author of the article which has been published in Danesheyoga(yoga science)magazine, Tehran/I.R.Iran as I have declared in bibliography. You may take notice that kundalini itself is not a physical energy or material which can be handled or formulated through an article! Its a divine evolutionary energy in every mankind and there are many wrong beliefs about its awakening by physical techniques. I am ready to discuss the matter to anyone who nominates himself/herself an expert in kundalini to show him/her tons of mistaken knowledge about it. Anyhow I am going to change the name of the article to clarify the text.

best Wishes

S. Farahyar

17 June, 2012


 * Delete as per  Night of the Big Wind   and the fact that many statements are in apparently direct contradiction with a whole lots of (apparently well sourced) wikipedia pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wait... is the above poster (Farahyar) basically stating that he cut and pasted a published magazine article onto a Wikipedia article? That's a copyvio and should be removed on that basis alone.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I though it might be that so I tried (and failed) to find passages form the article elsewere on the internet. Another reading is that the author above is claiming the publication of the article as authority for writing about the subject in wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah... that's not really kosher either way, especially since it appears to be such a limited publication that it'd be near impossible for the average Wikipedian to locate. I'm going to go ahead and tag it with a copyvio tag or something similar, though. Since much of it does contradict the Kundalini article, we might could tag it as a G3 for misinformation.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Stuartyeates. This is entirely a promotional essay by the original contributor and a potential copyvio, as he stated above that he published this same article in a magazine. Please be aware that even if you are the original writer and give permission, this might still violate WP:COPYVIO, as it could violate the copyright of the magazine it was published in. (And if you hold all copyrights, we still have to verify that you are who you claim to be- anyone can claim to be anyone on the internet. I can claim to be Mary, Queen of Scots, but that doesn't mean that I am!) Also, this is not a neutral or encyclopedic article and the research is all your own. Either way, this has no business being on Wikipedia. Assuming that this theory or magazine article is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, it'd need a complete rewrite from top to bottom.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:03, 18 June 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.