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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 20:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)reply
This is part of a long-standing
WP:Walled garden of
Integral theory (Ken Wilber) which was built at about the time that Wikipedia was first developing its rules for sourcing. Notice that the sources seem to all run afoul of
WP:FRIND. In looking for replacement sources for "thinkers and supporters" that were not caught up in the belief system, I came up woefully short.
jps (
talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete this list article could be replaced with a category in the unlikely event that we have enough articles relating to Integral Yoga. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Salimfadhley (
talk •
contribs)
Delete not a single good source. (I particularly enjoy how the Michael Crichton listing that actually admits right in the article that there's no good source.)
ApLundell (
talk) 20:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Pretty much the opposite of a well-sourced list.
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: Mostly unsourced. Cited sources on the other hand are unreliable.
Mosesheron (
talk) 22:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per Michel Crichton. -
Roxy .wooF 13:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete as above, this is a sort of "legacy" article, if done by AfC today it wouldn't be allowed.
Doug Wellertalk 15:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete None of the sources present are reliable.
Aloolkaparatha (
talk) 18:03, 12 June 2021 (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.
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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 20:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)reply
This is part of a long-standing
WP:Walled garden of
Integral theory (Ken Wilber) which was built at about the time that Wikipedia was first developing its rules for sourcing. Notice that the sources seem to all run afoul of
WP:FRIND. In looking for replacement sources for "thinkers and supporters" that were not caught up in the belief system, I came up woefully short.
jps (
talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete this list article could be replaced with a category in the unlikely event that we have enough articles relating to Integral Yoga. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Salimfadhley (
talk •
contribs)
Delete not a single good source. (I particularly enjoy how the Michael Crichton listing that actually admits right in the article that there's no good source.)
ApLundell (
talk) 20:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Pretty much the opposite of a well-sourced list.
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: Mostly unsourced. Cited sources on the other hand are unreliable.
Mosesheron (
talk) 22:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per Michel Crichton. -
Roxy .wooF 13:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete as above, this is a sort of "legacy" article, if done by AfC today it wouldn't be allowed.
Doug Wellertalk 15:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete None of the sources present are reliable.
Aloolkaparatha (
talk) 18:03, 12 June 2021 (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.