Select Page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Base Yogas

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. The arguments that there are insufficient sources to support the content are compelling. WP:V is a core policy and brooks no compromise, even for subjects where sources are difficult to find.  Sandstein  05:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Five Base Yogas

Five Base Yogas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps some of this could be merged into the Yoga article. JoelWhy (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:When I nominate an article for deletion, am I supposed to also "vote"? Or, is it just assumed I'm in favor of the deletion based on my nominating the article? In any case, I'm not sure whether I should waste my time editing the revisions made today (which are full of unsubstantiated claims) or just wait until it's deleted in its entirety.JoelWhy (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The editor is a domain expert working in good faith to improve this article about a non-western culture. Yoga has for most of its history been disseminated oraly and has few written sources. So the sources presented may well be reliable. I am certain that with more encouragemnt notability and good quality can be established. It is the nominator who has not demonstrated good faith here - if he sees problems he should cooperate with the editor and use his editorial skill to point out specific problems WP:RESPTAG to indicating the most glaring ommisions - otherwise how can the editor make a better article? In a case such as this Afd should be the alternative of last resort. BO; talk 11:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 00:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've not demonstrated good faith? What the hell are you talking about? Aside from a per se violation of WP:AGFC, your comment is patently absurd. I suggested the content be merged with the Yoga article, rather than outright delete, as this didn't seem notable enough to warrant its own page. I placed an extensive list of tags for improving the page based on the original train wreck of page that it started with. I've done a copious amount of editing on the article to improve it and remove the extensive violations of NPOV. So, next time, do a little research before making baseless criticisms.JoelWhy (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment III've looked at the newly added references. None of them appear to be reliable. We don't allow for special pleadings to determine the reliability of references saying that the traditions are 'passed down orally' and therefore we can use random blogs to reference them. If the editors have to resort to random blogs for references, it further highlights that the topic isn't notable. There must be 1,000,000 books, journals, articles, etc. on Yoga[citation needed]. Either someone will find some noteworthy ones discussing "Five Base Yogas" or else it will evidence that it should, in fact, be deleted.
  • Rebuttal — thanks for informing me about the WP:AGFC. I reviewed the entire history before making my statement above. I find it ironic that you did not examine the history and sources in detail before launching this diatribe — so please don't claim a higher moral ground.
Least you have forgotten, you placed the Afd notice before making any suggestions for improvement. You used only article wide notices so offered the other editors no indication where and what the NPOV, or other issues are in this article - nothing in the talk page and no inline citations. On the other habd the original editor has addressed the issue of context, content and has researched additional sources. He may also surprise you if you bother to discuss these problem. AFAIK The publications of books on yoga in the west date from 1960 — oral dissemination is still the main format or transmitting this vulnerable tradition. This certainly has bearing on what would be viewed as a reliable source by Wikipedia. However I will ask my mentor to look into this matter - since he speaks and reads Sanscrit. Merging into Yoga? This isn't the correct forum for that discussion but since you entertain this alternative than I'd suggest that Yoga is already long enough so Five Bases should be in its own article.BO; talk 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I placed the Afd tag a full 4 minutes before tagging it. Oh, what an unjust world we live in...
I'm doing new page patrols and I don't have time to go line by line through every article noting every single fault. If it's a half-decent page that needs work, I put in the effort. But, for this? I googled "Five Base Yogas", and you know what I found? Next to nothing. Right now, the number 1 hit for this topic on Google is this Wiki page. The first non-Wiki page with this title is a spam page selling pants. After that? NOTHING. It's just pages that have content from this newly created Wiki page. So, why didn't I spend more time discussing this with the author? Because, when you have a page that seems to be so conclusively non-notable, you put an Afd tag, giving the author the opportunity to make improvements, and then you move on.
It's a bit frustrating to do this and be met with accusations of bad faith, followed with unsupportable arguments that this is an oral tradition, so we shouldn't expect much in the way of reliable sources. Oral dissemination, are you kidding me?! Amazon has more than 4,000 books dealing with yoga (but none mentioning "five base yogas," AFAIK.) Google Scholar has scores of articles discussing Yoga, its history, etc. Articles discussing "five base yogas"? I didn't find a single one.JoelWhy (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've found no sources for "five base yoga" in google/gbooks or anywhere else. Of the links in the article:
- [1] - doesn't contain any mention of "five base yoga", although it talks about bases in yoga. (It does however show seven chakras.)
- [2] - This link shows five things (Life Force, Biomagnetism, Body, Mind, and Sexual Fluids), but these do not match up with the 'five bases' described in the article. Again, there is no mention of 'Five Bases Yoga' in this source.
- [3] - This link describes five 'sheaths of the mind' (bodily needs, emotional thoughts, function and results of life-force, link with Universal function, realization of Truth and communion with it), but these do not match up with the 'five bases' described in the article. Again, there is no mention of 'Five Bases Yoga' in this source.
- [4] - This article talks about seven chakras and six elements (Space, Air, Fire, Water, Earth, Mind). This seems to match up with some of what the article is talking about, but still contains no reference to 'Five Bases Yoga'.
In conclusion, as it currently stands the article has no valid sources and it appears to be WP:OR.--StvFetterly(Edits) 15:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Has it crossed your mind that this editor is not a native speaker of English (looked at his user page)? Perhaps your failure with a google search might have been an indicator or his odd sentence formation. Try searching for '"five elements" yoga'
  • Comment - Which editor are you referring to? And what does the editor's country of origin have to do with the lack of valid sources which support the article?--StvFetterly(Edits) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty on "five elements" and yoga. If that's what he meant, than it changes the discussion entirely. (I'm not convinced that this is what he meant, but I certainly am open to the possibility.) But, the fact that you're still trying to make it seem as if I didn't do my due diligence because I didn't realize that "five base yogas" actually means "five elements of yoga" says less about me as an editor and far more about you and you're inability to simply apologize and admit that you're wrong. (Ironic, given that you're apparently studying yoga, a discipline which is supposed to teach enlightenment.)JoelWhy (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article will need a rename, and much better sources if it's about 'five elements yoga'. I still believe that 'Five Bases Yoga' should be deleted as the name is meaningless and not used to describe the subject.--StvFetterly(Edits) 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I'm fine with that. I haven't looked into 'five elements yoga' enough to know whether it warrants its own page, etc, I just looked enough to see that it's at least something which exists outside the confines of Wikipedia.JoelWhy (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.