Five Base Yogas (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The decision was wrong on both the facts and on the protocol. Between the start and end of the Afd process the article had been improved to cure the complaint in the Afd notice. The discussion had revealed that the problem with the article was that it had been misnamed due to the editor's poor level of english (a thousand apologies - since mine is no better). However once these problem had been pointed out the deleters had stated that the problem could be cured with better sourcing and renaming the article. Following this statement an additional good source was provided curing the WP:V. At the closing the administrator who loves to uses Wikipedia:NOTVOTE as a pretext for ignoring votes himself did a vote count instead of checking the facts. His closing message is in clear contradiction of his duty to check WP:V which he invoked as the overriding reason to delete an article. For more information see here BO; talk 19:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, this is an interesting one. On the face of it we may be dealing with a confusion caused by mistranslation. While I think it's correct that Yoga rests on a quintet of elements, a simple google search doesn't reveal any useful hits for "five base yoga". This implies that the closer was not at fault because he implemented the consensus, but the discussion itself could have been defective. A temporary undeletion might be helpful in this case.—S Marshall T/C 09:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Or maybe not so interesting. The nominator entered the AfD attacking the nominator personally ("It is the nominator who has not demonstrated good faith") and in his nomination here he is overly personal in attacking the closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This DR nominator saw a double vote followed by a claim by the Afd nominator that he did not even bother to check new WP:V. He was not only worried about the loss of face to the original editor (the only one writing on yoga this month) but also of the quality of the Afd nominator patrolling activities in the future. Although he thought had used restraint in his language he too is new to Afd and now apologizes. The point was that Afd had been tainted by an unfortunate bias against a relative newcomer. This DR request indicates the bias generated had ended up poisoning the ultimate decision.

IMHO the point raised about the closer are unfortunately germane and require no sugar-coating - this is a DR and the closer's decision will take a greater part of this debate than the original facts. The closer wields disporportionate influence and has extensive experience - having closed very complex and difficult Afd cases - he was offered three opportunities to avoid this DR but elected to put the case back into a uneccessary debate. We will have to work 9 times harder just to see a new comer join our community. We could have brought Five Bases under it new name to a Good Article standing with all this expanded energy and time. BO; talk 18:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the facts here are actually interesting, if the nomination's closed for personal attacks, then I will personally reopen it using less dramatic language.—S Marshall T/C 11:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I too would appreciate a temproary undeletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I will research and add aditional WP:RS sources in the coming week using my yoga libraryBO; talk 18:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, please don't edit the article if temporarily undeleted. It will be much more helpful if you would please place your sources here in this deletion review. While the answer may be a separate article that resembles Five elements (Japanese philosophy), that has yet to be determined; I don't know what the deleted content looked like. We might also decide that it belongs as a subsection of Mahābhūta or Classical element.—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (I think this should be automatic for any good faith request , except that BLPs need to be considered individually, for it will sometimes be inappropriate.). DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, DGG. On reading that content, my view is that to the extent that it's not already covered in Mahābhūta, it belongs in that article rather than as a separate one. Five Base Yogas is clearly a plausible search term because an editor tried to create an article in it, so it makes an appropriate redirect to preserve any contribution history.

  I'm of the view that we should do this off our own backs rather than send it back to AfD for a fresh discussion. I think the AfD can be simply set aside because it only consisted of people googling the literal article title and quibbling the sources. Insufficient attention was paid to the good faith attempt to generate encyclopaedic content from that user. Insufficient reading about the actual subject took place and insufficient creative thought went into possible outcomes. No blame attaches to Sandstein as closer, because he implemented the consensus exactly as he should have done. It was our processes that were at fault.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was the person who originally nominated this article for deletion. I nominated the article in good faith because I could find nothing about "Five Base yogas," and the citations provided were entirely unsuitable. I was instantly accused of not using good faith because I somehow should have realized that Yoga is mostly passed down via oral tradition (I believe that falls under special pleading) and therefore we shouldn't expect too much in the way of proper citations. Then, one of the defenders of the article said that perhaps the original editor actually meant to call the article "five elements of yoga," implying that this was somehow my fault for not realizing that what the editor wrote was not at all what he meant. However, AFAK, no one have provided any evidence to support the claim that the editor did not, in fact, mean precisely what he wrote. I don't necessarily object to the article being merged into the yoga article, or even if it survives on its own. But, the issue here isn't bias -- "five base yogas" doesn't warrant a redirect, let alone its own article. If the article was intended to be on a different subject matter, than perhaps the most prudent thing to do is to create a new article based on what can be used from the previous entry, and then make a decision based upon the merits.JoelWhy (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JoelWhy (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment have tried to communicate with the article creator, to check his reaction?

BO; talk 09:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, but other editors on this page have. So far, no input from the original author.JoelWhy (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a side note, I am now browsing through all the contributions made by the author of this article. He's not some brand new user we're driving away -- he's made more than 1,000 edits, and every page he's created that I have checked so far is a disaster. They're replete with pseudoscientific claims supported by unambiguously unreliable sources. This is going to take a lot of work, above and beyond this particular Five Base Yogas page.JoelWhy (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Statement I'd like to salute DGG and S Marshall on restoring my faith in Wikipedians and their pursuit of policy. I now support an merge with Mahābhūta. I also weakly support a redirect because - I am of the opinion that it is a translation error but having it can only be of service to other users.
• JoelWhy - Jimbo lectured at wikimania 2011 that 1000 edits is considered the bare minimum for a new comer to learn wiki syntax. It is certainly not enough to master the rules of policy. The user's home page shows great potential. I take the long view that with some coaching users correct their own mistakes given half a chance. By spreading a little wikilove one can get better results than with a 95% success rate at CSD. BO; talk 01:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was his first edit or his 1 millionth, it doesn't impact this particular article. If he meant something which was entirely different than what he wrote, this has absolutely nothing to do with user experience. Either he meant what he wrote, or he meant what you've speculated that he meant, in which case, perhaps he lacks the language skills to be editing on the English language Wikipedia. (I don't mean this as an insult -- I speak Spanish quite well, but I know my grammar is lacking, so I don't edit on the Spanish Wiki.) In any case, whether he continues to edit or not is up to him. For this particular page, I still think a redirect is silly -- as of yet, we still don't have even a single half-decent source which uses this phrase. We currently have evidence that one human being on the face of the earth uses the phrase "five base yogas". That doesn't warrant a Wiki redirect. A separate, NPOV article on the five elements of yoga may be a good idea, but whether it comes in the form of a deletion, while salvaging the useable information, starting from scratch, or a major overhaul of the existing article doesn't seem to make much of a difference.JoelWhy (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as it is well within admin discretion. I'm also hardly inclined to entertain a request filled with personal attacks on the closer. If we are to create a redirect, I see no compelling reason to keep the history. T. Canens (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close with no prejudice to recreating a properly sourced and named article if such is possible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close Within administrator discretion and the poor commentary of the requestor did not encourage me to give them the benefit of the doubt in their claims. MBisanz ^talk 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]