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. MBisanz ^talk 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure if this comes under ((db-repost)); created on 14th January, it appears largely similar to Egyptian Yoga, deleted at AFD on January 2nd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga).

If ((db-repost)) doesn't apply, I'm nominating it for failure to show notability. With all consideration of the risk of systemic bias (I'm not dissing sources for being French/African), the article feels to be building a story of importance based on mentions in publications too obscure to be taken as proof of notability. It also looks like a WP:COATRACK for duplicating material from Babacar Khane, by the same editor(s), and I'm not keen on the socky/COI flavour of its re-creation Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Looks like a recreation of the old article, with all the same problems. Looks like sockpuppetry being used to create promotional articles as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Script fail. Anyway, no opinion on the article itself, but just noting for the record that this article is sufficiently different to avoid speedy deletion under WP:G4. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems border-line quackery; and of the dozen or so sources provided, none are in English. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's not impossible that a good article could be written on this topic some day, but the present one is not it. If you wrote an article called 'Anglo-Saxon Yoga' you would be expected to give respectable third-party academic sources that weighed the evidence. You'd want to be convinced that what the Anglo-Saxons did could be considered yoga, and they had a distinctive approach to it. The present article reads like promotion for a particular school of yoga that would like to think of itself as Egyptian. Though db-repost may not apply, the closing admin might well take a look at the arguments in the last AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga (note upper case) since some of those arguments easily apply to this article. It is not advisable to make this title into a redirect to Babacar Khane, because the latter article looks like a candidate for deletion as well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's sources. Even though they aren't in English doesn't mean they aren't good sources. It's long enough, but a little bit choppy; if we do keep it, it should be cleaned up. Also, can we introduce it to some other articles, it's an orphan.Cssiitcic (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nomination, I am not dissing sources for being non-English; I'm dissing them for failure to prove notability and failure to support statements in the article. For instance

Khane is considered in Europe and Africa as the main master of Egyptian yoga cited to See for example Davina, "Le maître contemporain révélateur du yoga des pharaons est Babacar KhaneMaxi Yoga, Marabout, Paris, 2003, p. 170

One sentence in a book by a TV celebrity is not proof for the general statement.

Several Africanists lean on Khane's researchs cited to See for example Muata Ashby and his numerous self-publications

Again citation doesn't support the general statement, and isn't a reliable source anyway.

the IXe philosophic seminar organized by the Catholic Faculty of Kinshasa

Is this a notable event, and to what extent did it mention the subject? And so on. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2009 (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.