The result was keep, without prejudice to a merge at editorial discretion. There is certainly no consensus here that the article ought to be deleted. Skomorokh 01:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This was listed on CSD to be deleted because it was blatant advertising, but I cannot see it myself. It appears I'm not alone here, as a number of editors have expressed the same opinion on the talk page. However, general consensus on talk is that we cannot determine if this article is notable in the Yoga world, and it was suggested we take to AFD. I am therefore listing this here for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The following of Anahata Yoga appears to be significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. In my opinion, it passes the notoriety test. Georgiamonet ( talk) 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
merge to yoga...its categorised as a "minor form of yoga", as a matter of fact, all other minor forms of yoga should have a mention on the yoga page, and their entries deleted. -- 60.240.117.215 ( talk) 13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep I believe this is the first article I started, and I was a newbie for sure. I have not kept up with the article since. Some factors to consider:
I am on a forced wikibreak with short, haphazard access to the internet, so I will be unable to fix this article for several weeks. If it's deleted, I'd like to be sure that it's not blacklisted, so I will be able to recreate a more substantial article. -- Nemonoman ( talk) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
merge. :This is one solution given by an unknown user, that I have been thinking of. Since the notability of these yoga articles, are hanging in between, only the name (with possibly a one-line description) can be put on the page of List of Modern Yogas (and not Yoga). Even I am a bit skeptical of removing the different flavors of minor yoga, since this is only place, where we can know the different kinds of Yoga that exists today. -- Bhuto ( Talk | Contribs) 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, without prejudice to a merge at editorial discretion. There is certainly no consensus here that the article ought to be deleted. Skomorokh 01:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This was listed on CSD to be deleted because it was blatant advertising, but I cannot see it myself. It appears I'm not alone here, as a number of editors have expressed the same opinion on the talk page. However, general consensus on talk is that we cannot determine if this article is notable in the Yoga world, and it was suggested we take to AFD. I am therefore listing this here for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The following of Anahata Yoga appears to be significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. In my opinion, it passes the notoriety test. Georgiamonet ( talk) 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
merge to yoga...its categorised as a "minor form of yoga", as a matter of fact, all other minor forms of yoga should have a mention on the yoga page, and their entries deleted. -- 60.240.117.215 ( talk) 13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep I believe this is the first article I started, and I was a newbie for sure. I have not kept up with the article since. Some factors to consider:
I am on a forced wikibreak with short, haphazard access to the internet, so I will be unable to fix this article for several weeks. If it's deleted, I'd like to be sure that it's not blacklisted, so I will be able to recreate a more substantial article. -- Nemonoman ( talk) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
merge. :This is one solution given by an unknown user, that I have been thinking of. Since the notability of these yoga articles, are hanging in between, only the name (with possibly a one-line description) can be put on the page of List of Modern Yogas (and not Yoga). Even I am a bit skeptical of removing the different flavors of minor yoga, since this is only place, where we can know the different kinds of Yoga that exists today. -- Bhuto ( Talk | Contribs) 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply