Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of yoga schools


 * 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. Y.Ichiro (会話| + |投稿記録|メール) 09:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

List of yoga schools
Seems to have become a list of links to external commercial yoga sites. Although there is a caveat that each entry should have at least an article on Wikipedia, not all do, and no one seems to be enforcing the rule. So, to me, there does not seem to be any attempt to show that the entries are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Would be better as a category, any school notable enough to warrant an article, could be placed into that category.
 * Delete. TheRingess 07:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)}
 * Delete Michael 07:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT a directory.  I suppose a category could be created if there were enough (>5) notable individual schools.  --Alan Au 07:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NOT a web directory or repository of links. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 08:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, removing redlinks. The list provides additional content over a category, namely the teacher of a given school.  I note that well over five schools on the list have articles.  Powers 13:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Why get rid of the red links? They remind editors that an article needs to be created.  Unless, of course the subject is inappropriate for its own article.  See: Red link AdamBiswanger1 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove all external links (they belong in the schools' own articles) - Che Nuevara:  Join  the   Revolution 15:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like the vast majority of the schools listed have Wikipedia entries, so on that basis it's not a directory of external links.  However, agree with User:CheNuevara that external links should not be listed. fbb_fan 16:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize the notable ones, if such a thing exists (not my specialty). -- nae'blis (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Lists and categories are not interchangeable.  The following point from Lists is worth noting:
 * Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of pages from it, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available.
 * Lists can also be used to indicate articles needing to be written, another limitation of categories. fbb_fan 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as above lists provide a separate navigation/access point to information and are not substitutable by categories. Remove red links where there is neither an article on the school or guru, also remove external links. Paul foord 21:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please lists are not substituted by categories Yuckfoo 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Agree with user yuckfoo and Paul Foord. This article is a useful hub of information, and would not be adequately replaced by a category type entry. I frequent a lot of geek articles (example Comparison of FTP clients ) that perform similar functions. --Nemonoman 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth, a useful hub of information which cannot be replaced by categories at this time. Bahn Mi 01:49, 14 July 2006 (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.