Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoga Chi Gung

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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga Chi Gung

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This term apears to be OR. After a look through Google books and Google scholar, I was not able to find any reference to these terms when placed together. As is, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 17:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteYoga is notable as is Chi Gung. No evidence this synthesis is though. RMHED (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A google search for '"yoga chi gung" -australia' returns nothing at all relevant, and I am forced to conclude from this that almost nothing has been written on the topic. As a google search is a rather pitiful way to establish this, I conducted searches in the online journal indicies Academic Search Complete and SportDISCUS (non-free, unfortunately), and found nothing whatsoever. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any evidence of the notability of this as a combined subject, only self-published sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertising for a roll-your-own guru/method. There is a lot of that about. People will take an element from this, a dash of that, and then get a Tae Bo jab on top and call themselves the new seer. <shrug> Utgard Loki (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2008 (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.