Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogani (3rd nomination)

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. Peacent 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yogani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Promotional article on non-notable subject. Aarktica 22:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, The writer of the article has only contributed one article to wikipedia. That is not bad per say, but his only comments/edits all have to do with this one article. I have a gut feeling that the writer might be the subject of the article, which I do not have a problem with normally, if written in a neutral way. Which this article for the most part does. My problem is with that their are no sources other then yoga web sites and his writings. For me to even contemplate a change in my position, I would need additional mainstream sources. Callelinea 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although different from the previous AFD which I closed as "userfy", this falls victim to the same problems, ultimately, that one did. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per discussion. Page is largely self promotional. Publication of books is not, per se, a sign of notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no 3rd party documentation of any sort that might show notability. DGG (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per only trivial mentions in the media Corpx 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not entirely sure what to make of this article, but it does assert notability by saying "the first" in its first sentence and does provide sources in the form of a bibliography, a note, and external links. Maybe keep for that reason. Is it more a matter of conflict of interest by the article's author/main contributor? Or do you think it just needs more independent sources and edits? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

assserting is sufficient to keep from speedy deletion, but not sufficient for a keep. The external links are his online teachings and the reference is a series of his audio interviews on yahoo. DGG (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, three of the books are in worldcat, and LOC has most of the books, but that isnt sufficient to demonstrate notability as an anonymous author. The mentions in newspaper are all about a "Yogani" yoga studio that was at 1617 W Platt St in Tampa, and is now at 1112 W Platt St; there is a lot of information about the owner Annie Pomerantz/Okerlin, but she is not a he, so its hard to join the dots here. More information at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP). John Vandenberg 04:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only a single outside source does not mean notable. Bearian 19:50, 12 July 2007 (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.