Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudarshan Kriya


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sudarshan Kriya

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nomination. PROD was removed previously and incorrectly restored. Original PROD concern was: "This article is written like an advertisement. Older revisions and discission pages have hinted for a deletion already. The notability is also challenged. It is completely unencyclopedic." HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertising: If the page is about "Sudarshan Kriya", this being an "encylopedia," then this breathing practice should be explained here in thorough detail. e.g. "Samayana Pranayama" means to make the length of inhalation exactly the same time and depth and the exhalation. Be we are not given the details of the "Sudarshan Kriya" practice. Without this the article comprises "lead marketing" which tantalizers readers to search for the details of the technique, but that technique is only available for a fee by signing up for an Art of Living workshop. This contravenes the Hindu and yogic etiquette of the religious and spiritual heritage from which the practice is taken: which is that these teachings be given freely those who request then and are fit to receive them. I'm not saying that there is not a legitimate place for such marketing or such fee-for-program enterprises, (everyone has to make a living) but just not in Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailasnatha (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep But some editing needs doing: such as, the first paragraph under the title Scietific Research deals with and cites references that deal with respiration exercises in general and not with Sudarshan Kriya in particular - that paragraph needs to be removed. References relating to yoga without specific reference to Sudarshan Kriyas should be removed. There seems to be enough articles about the subject matter in scientific journal to make it morderately notable. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well referenced and meets the standards established by the WP:GNG. Moorsmur (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep This article is written like an ad and needs to be rewritten. It additionally needs to be wikified. I think there is valid information presented worthy of preservation, however. Carrite (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The article as it stands is an advertisement for the "Art of Living Foundation" and the "International Association for Human Values". The subject itself appears notable and could probably have an informational article written about it.  However, the article in its current form is completely worthless.  Delete the article, and when someone comes along with the knowledge and motivation to create a proper, non-advertisement, encyclopedic article, then it can be re-created.    talk 22:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Sudarshan kriya is just one part of the many different kriyas (activities) done at the Art of Living workshop. But then why does an article exist for only this kriya? The main reason is because this kriya has been trademarked / copyrighted by the Art of Living. Hence, nobody can teach it, and has only to be learnt from the AoL by paying an amount. This distills down to the point that the article is in fact an advertisement and the procedures / methods done cannot be put in an encyclopedia for fear of copyright violation. Aside from an advertisement, being a trademarked kriya, it shouldn't be promoted on Wikipedia. Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 10:26, 6 June 2010 (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.