Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral yoga

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 keep. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a consensus to keep, though this does not preclude merging, renaming, or otherwise improving the article. To the extent that the topic may be difficult to pin down, Wikipedia covers even entirely incoherent subjects (e.g. Time Cube) if they meet the standards for notability. BD2412 T 05:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Integral yoga edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources do not provide any indication of this subject's notability, relies almost entirely on primary sources. Salimfadhley (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic. Only WP:FRINGE ideas from in-universe fringe sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean here with "fringe"? We use the term "fringe" for scholarly theories that significantly depart from the scholarly mainstream, not for religious ideas and systems. Should we also delete the articles on Chrustianity, because the resurrection of dead bodies is a fringe theory? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion here, perhaps, is because of the way "integral" as an adjective is sometimes used by people who have co-opted Sri Aurobindo's word choice and attached it to a huge range of other ideas. What I think we have now, however, is an identification of the progenitor which, as I indicate in my !vote, may be the real notable thing to discuss in WP as opposed to much of the other cruft that has shown up here over the years. jps (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this actually what Sri Aurobindo's philosophy is called outside of Integral Theory circles, or is this just a double-down interpretation from within this historically very weedy WP:Walled garden? Having spent years trying to clean up the messes of those obsessed with Integral Theory, I've lost my touch in knowing which way is up! jps (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, I note that our Mirra Alfassa article uses the term as though it were the proper identifier, but the sourcing upon which this writing is based is pretty opaque. jps (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Supermind (integral yoga). Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting idea. Can you elaborate more on why you think this is the correct thing to do? jps (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly because both subjects are same. Reliable sources extensively discuss the subject but in relation with Aurobindo. Yoonadue (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should the name then be "Integral yoga" instead of "Supermind (integral yoga)" because it is more basic? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone looked to see which idea is talked about more in the academic literature? Doing a lit search for "integral yoga" was not edifying. Doing a lit search for "supermind" was even more bewildering. jps (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject itself is called Integral Yoga why would it make sense to move it supermind which would have much less refrences and sources Shrikanthv (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per my comment above. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below. Yoonadue (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is this a serious proposal?

See Google Scholar and Google Books, for example Brainerd Prince (2017), The Integral Philosophy of Aurobindo: Hermeneutics and the Study of Religion, Taylor & Francis; and encyclopedias such as Jones' Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, for the notability of the topic. From Jones' MER (p.634):

Disciples, admirers, and advocates of Aurobindo’s vision of spiritual evolution and system of Integral Yoga gather in communities throughout the world. Best known are those who have begun construction of Auroville, a city near Pondicherry designed to embody Aurobindo’s ideal for a transformed humanity, and the ashram at Pondicherry where Aurobindo himelf lived for forty years.

Aurobindo is regarded as one of the main proponents of Neo-Vedanta, the Hindu modernism that popularized Hinduism and yoga in the west. Brainerd Prince (p.15):

The Neo-Vedānta tradition, beginning with Rammohan Roy and reaching its crescendo in Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan, can be seen as using an 'integral' philosophical approach.

Regarding the sources, the article has more secondary than primary sources
Merging "Integral yoga" to "Supermind" is a reversal of primacy; if those articles are to be merged, then Supermind should be merged to Integral Yoga, which could be renamed "Integral Yoga (Aurobindo)".
That the article could be better written (sorry, Shrikanthv) is a real issue, but not an argument for deletion. See this version which is probably a lot clearer; I've rolled it back to that version.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious as to exactly how we might want to make sure this topic gets properly contextualized. One of the problems WP-ENG has is that it had early on been taken over by Integral theory (Ken Wilber) cultists which makes it seem like that use of the "integral" word is the most dominant. I think that this is incorrect and that the strain of Neo-Vedanta being referenced here is more WP:PROMINENT. What do you think? jps (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose makes no sense, the primary source was used to explain the subject in itself but thousands of other sources and references available, article was in transformation mode before which this proposal is being made Shrikanthv (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopeadic word salad. -Roxy . wooF 07:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps promote to a main article to grow past the current domination of Integral theory (Ken Wilber) which is, for example, to what integral philosophy redirects. I have become convinced looking at the various sources which discuss Sri Aurobindo that integral yoga and Sri Aurobindo's philosophy are actually more influential in New Age circles than Ken Wilber's work. See California Institute of Integral Studies for an example of a thriving New Age community built around this tradition. Yes, it is WP:FRINGE... but it appears to me to be WP:NFRINGE. I don't think this is a WP:TNT situation here, to be honest. jps (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

integral yoga and Sri Aurobindo's philosophy are actually more influential in New Age circles than Ken Wilber's work - for sure. Wilber drew on Aurobindo, but Wilber's works, which look impressive at first sight, are just plain nonsense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addentum: no need to TNT; my roll-back suffices. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be more work to be done there. A lot of what is present in your rollback is material that isn't reliably sourced to scholars who study Sri Aurobindo's ideas/religious organization but instead is just summarizing primary source material. We need much better secondary sources to properly clean-up the text. jps (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Discussion about merging/re-titling/redirecting can be done outside the AfD. AnM2002 (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Phil Goldberg's books, "American Veda" and "Woodstock Guru - Swami Satchidananda", offers a broad historical review of yoga in American and devotes considerable credit to Integral Yoga as a major influence on American society. Ellis408 (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per jps. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is documented by numerous encyclopedias including Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia; The Encyclopedia of American Religions; New Age Encyclopedia; Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions; &c. The main complication is that there is more than one school and so we have more than one article – see Integral Yoga (Satchidananda). It seems telling that the nomination says nothing of this and so WP:BEFORE has not been followed. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:08, 18 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.