I admit this user is putting a lot of work and some nice prose into this, and yes it does pass the sleep test, but... It is still a privately owned resort of no historical interest, really just an attraction with some cottages. How is this different from Xelha or any other privately owned resort that we delete, except that it's yoga instead of another tourist activity?
Merge and delete - Texugo 05:55, 30 January 2011 (EST)
I thought of elaborating on the topic in Coimbatore but I took into consideration three factors: One, that it lies about 30 km from and well outside the boundaries of the nearest major town. Two, that a lot of people do visit this place - not just from Coimbatore but from various parts of India and the world. Three, that there are a lot of activities to do at the destination, a traveler could dedicate 2-3 days to this place. So adding all the information such as See & Do, Stay, Etiquette etc would just look too cumbersome in the Coimbatore page. BTW as the creator of the article, do I also get to vote or is my vote obvious? Thnx. Regstuff 06:19, 30 January 2011 (EST)
You are of course welcome to comment here. I just want to hold this up against established policy and practice because I don't think it's a good fit. We have eliminated articles for other private resorts, despite them having a variety of activities or tourists who spend 2 or 3 days there. The info you have provided is well-written, but it is a great deal more detailed than we usually provide-- that's what the link to the official website is for. Texugo 06:29, 30 January 2011 (EST)
It seems odd to merge it into an article that's 35 km (22 miles) away, especially since the content that is here would overwhelm the Coimbatore article. It appears to be a destination in its own right to me. Is there an example of the level of detail that you deem too much for our site? LtPowers 11:19, 30 January 2011 (EST)
I dunno, a map and a walk-around guide of the small complex with its 3 main buildings, a play-by-play of all the goings-on at all two temples plus detailed aesthetic descriptions of them (remember these are recent structures, not historically significant), the two temples dominate both See and Do... It seems a bit much to me. At any rate, the more important issue for me is that it is a privately-owned resort, as are Xcaret and Xelha and others that we have (rightfully, I think) deleted in the past, the only difference being that it is for relaxation and yoga instead of tourism and swimming with dolphins. Do we give it a pass just because it's yoga? just because it's 30km from the nearest article (Xel-ha is perhaps a bit further even from the article in which it is described). How do we justify giving this one an article? -- Texugo 21:05, 30 January 2011 (EST)
There is no policy demanding the deletion of privately-owned resorts, nor do I understand in the least why we would want such a policy. We have six star articles that are collectively, exclusively about a single privately-owned resort destination. I'm working on another article about a privately-owned resort now: Darien Lake.
I do understand your concerns about level of detail, and it probably could be pared down a bit. But I don't think a merge is the answer. It doesn't seem like people visit this resort as part of a trip to Coimbatore; they specifically take a trip to the resort. The fact that there's nothing else nearby is not the fault of the resort. It's not unlike a hotel and restaurant out in the middle of nowhere here in the U.S. -- putting it in the article of a town twenty miles away feels insufficient, and has every time that this issue has come up. My feeling is, if there's a place to sleep and a place to eat, and it's not part of some other municipality, we might as well have an article on it. LtPowers 11:34, 31 January 2011 (EST)
Keep. While I'm no expert on yogic retreats, this seems to be a nice little article, and seems to have all the things we look for in destination guides (sights, food, lodging, etc.). And it's created by a clearly talented new contributor who has even created a WT-style map for the article! --PeterTalk 23:07, 31 January 2011 (EST)
Keep. I'm planning to go to the Isha Center later this year and have found this information most helpful - I don't know where else I could access some of these specifics that will help me plan my travel so I am very grateful for this. There is some duplication in the article that could be paired down and I suspect the author could include links to other sites where some of this material is discussed at length. One important point to consider is that this is NOT a private resort. Based on my understanding the Isha Center is open to the public and hosts many events throughout the year to which the public is warmly invited. Rebecca Reynolds 00:43, 1 February 2011 (EST)
Hi Rebecca. Just wanted to mention that I elaborated and went into such detail because I thought that all the valid information should be available on a single page so the traveler could just print-out the wikitravel guide and set off. And the manual of style recommended that external links be kept to a bare minimum, which is why I avoided them. —The preceding comment was added by Regstuff (talk • contribs)
You're absolutely right about the external links. LtPowers 08:40, 1 February 2011 (EST)
Thanks for your responses, I stand corrected, as I said I am grateful for this information and appreciate how easy it is to locate with Wiki, my first destination search site. Rebecca Reynolds 13:28, 1 February 2011 (EST)
"keep!" this is not just some private resort. Isha Yoga Center gets millions of visitors each year. There are some events which attract 100,000 participants in a day. Keep it! You have an article about the Playboy Mansion, which is private. —The preceding comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
Um... No, we don't have an article about that. you're confusing us with Wikipedia perhaps. Texugo 12:17, 1 February 2011 (EST)
Erm,Keep, this is a tricky one. It seems like a very nice article, but one which sets a dangerous precedent, especially for a destination in India, where i'm less inclined to deviate from any policy, since we already have anarchy ruling on Wikitravels own Indian micro cosmos. I say keep, but I just want to go on record and say I have a feeling this will spell trouble with persistent Indian resort/hill station owners down the line. --Stefan (sertmann)talk 13:05, 1 February 2011 (EST)
Merge and delete As Stefan explained this article sets a dangerous path for all indian yoga shrines. If we keep this article we will face creation of hundreds of similiar articles. India is already one of our most touted countries and its already today hard to control. I fear that touts like in Rishikesh will take over and therefore oppose this precedent. jan 03:04, 2 February 2011 (EST)
Keep. Velangiri Biosphere is an important geographical location within India located in South. They rival the spiritual and sporting charm and romance of the Himalayas. Isha Center happens to be one of the places from where to experience the Southern Kailash, as the Velangiris are known in India.--Classictoad 23:01, 6 February 2011 (EST)
Keep. One of the things that distinguishes this Ashram is that it also has a Rejuvenation Center which I visited in Aug-Sep 2010. This seems to be an important feature that should be mentioned in this listing as it attracts visitors with an array of medical issues which are addressed at the Rejuvenation Center.--mkh 19:29, 7 February 2011 (EST)
Keep.I was looking for more info on this yoga center and I found the information really useful. I don't understand why would we want to delete this. The whole point of wikitravels is to provide this kind of information to folks searching the net. Please keep this. —The preceding comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
Does anyone else find it extremely suspicious that we would get five "keep" responses from five different people, none of whom have ever contributed to Wikitravel before, but all of whom have knowledge of this not-so-well-known place and all of whom have managed to happen upon the vfd page to make their first contribution?. texugo 22:53, 10 February 2011 (EST)
Considering there's a notice at the top of the page in question, I don't think it's so odd for someone to find their way to this page. Maybe the page is more popular than we thought. LtPowers 09:00, 11 February 2011 (EST)
I agree with Texugo; I don't think this place seems to be that popular. –sumone10154 12:06, 11 February 2011 (EST)
Keep. While this doesn't meet the standard Wikitravel:What is an article criteria, I tend to agree with Peter that it's now a complete article (including maps), so I would classify it using the "content is too extensive to merge" criteria under which we make occasional exceptions. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:05, 18 February 2011 (EST)
Any further comment? This nomination has been open for a while so it's time to get it resolved - I'm not sure that there is a consensus, but there are enough reasons & votes to keep it that I would lean towards resolving it that way. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:10, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
Reluctant Keep I really wonder if this place could not be summed up in a single listing in a city article however, for now, I'll go with Ryan. I do agree with Peter though that this could lead to a slippery slope, since our Indian articles are usually very spammy, touty, etc. ChubbyWimbus 22:55, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
I am still of the opinion that 5-6 of the above "keeps" are a person or persons involved in doing that kind of touting in the first place. texugo 09:17, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
Result: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:27, 30 March 2011 (EDT)
I'd like to put this up for re-nomination, as the earlier voting process was obviously rigged (see ). If Delta Works should go, which has no clear city where it should be redirected to, we should at least redirect the Isha Yoga Centre. It is clearly an attraction, and belongs to Coimbatore, where it is already listed in the See section.
Merge and redirect to Coimbatore. - As the one who nominated it for deletion the first time, I also felt that the voting was rigged: New users practically never make their very first contribution on the VfD page, and for this one little-known attraction, there were at least five or six such never-contributed-before users voting to keep it within only a day or two of its nomination? Not at all believable. texugo 02:59, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Keep per my comments last time. New users were hardly the only people recommending the article be kept. Merging to a community 35 kilometers distant seems absurd to me. LtPowers 10:02, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Speedy keep. The previous VFD was not "obviously rigged" - there were four "keep" votes from regular users and two "merge and delete" votes. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Keep I don't particularly like ashrams, but merging this one into the nearest huge city (which is not at all the nearest town!) just makes no sense to me either. For travellers, this ashram is a destination of its own and apart from being a transport hub on the way there, the huge and industrial city of Coimbatore has little to do with it. Also, putting all this info into the Combatoire article would throw that one totally off balance, as the ashram is not a major sight of that city. If the yoga centre has to be merged into something, it should probably be into the village article of Semmedu. However, in practice it doesn't clearly belong to any city or town, it is a destination of its own, you can eat and sleep there, and the current article is functional (guide status even), so just keeping it seems the most sensible thing right now. Justme 11:09, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
That discussion puts a dangerous precedent for Wikitravel, so it should be discussed thoroughly. The previous discussion is 100% rigged to the bone with 6 obvious fake in favor voters, even excluding the writer of the article (who probably set it all up). A majority of votes were fake, which puts the whole process at stake, and with that, the credibility of Wikitravel as a whole.
Having an attraction 35 km far is by any means not "absurd", it's the way many articles are structured on the site. Kanchanaburi has attractions more than 100km off. People visit the attraction from Coimbatore, so that's where it should be listed according to current Wikitravel policy (and it is already listed in that article in the first place).
And Justme, I don't think it would throw the Coimbatore article out of balance. This article has way too much information for just one sight, a lot of it should go. I could easily write 30 pages about the Grand Palace in Bangkok and then make it a separate article, but that doesn't mean it's a good fit for a travel guide. --globe-trotter 11:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Globe-trotter - while I respect your opinion, I take offense to your repeated comments that the previous discussion was "rigged to the bone". As was pointed out above, even if you take away all votes from new users, there four "keep" votes and only two "merge" votes. And I'm far from convinced that all of the new users who voted were "fake users". -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:25, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
They were all fake. I could be political correct, and state that the only contributions they did were voting on that particular VFD, but let's be honest here, they were all fake users (probably created by the writer of that article, who might even be the owner of the attraction). On Wikipedia, those votes would not even count as only users with a particular number of edits made count there. Obviously the votes from the Wikitravel veterans are real, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look more careful to this slippery slope. --globe-trotter 11:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Reading that vfd discussion again, there was a genuine 4-2 vote to keep. The other votes appear to be highly questionable though and, to be polite, somewhat outside the normal pattern of vfd voting :).--burmesedays 11:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
While we normally don't get many VFD comments from new users, Wikitravel is also the #2 Google result for anyone searching for this ashram, so while the voting was suspicious, without seeing the logs I think it's impossible to definitively call fraud - I suspect if some of our other high-ranking articles like Grand old hotels were put up for VFD that they might also attract significant attention from drive-by users. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:59, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Merge and re-direct to Coimbatore. At first glance this article totally deceived me, and I even stuck it up as an OtbP candidate. It is though clearly not an article. It's a 150 acre Yoga-based property, as stated in the 3rd sentence of the article. I am bemused as to why veteran Wikitravelers voted to keep it first time round? This sets a very nasty precedent indeed, and would make deleting any future resort article more than troublesome. The fact that there is loads of detail is irrelevant. I could write as much about a large Four Seasons golf resort if I put my mind to it. As for the appropriateness of merging to Coimbatore, 20 miles is a nothing distance in India (or anywhere else for that matter), and should be no impediment to such a merge. It is certainly not "absurd". --burmesedays 11:20, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
It's not that I want to keep this article specifically, but it seems weird to put it into Coimbatore. Even in India 35 km is a good bus ride, but more importantly, there are other towns closer. It would be like putting the Keukenhof into Amsterdam, despite the fact that there are other towns nearer. The fact that WT (and even Wikipedia) is underdeveloped as far as that region goes, doesn't seem a good reason to dump information into the nearest city we have. Keeping it seemed easier, but if it's a precedent matter I don't think ashrams generally make good separate destinations. Justme 11:56, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Coimbatore is not set in stone to me. We could also maybe create an article Velliangiri Mountains, or maybe another town/village from where travelers visit this attraction. I have objections with the principle of creating articles for attractions, which is not allowed per Wikitravel policy. --globe-trotter 12:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Merging it with Coimbatore would be like merging Walt Disney World into Orlando. Except even farther away. If you can sleep there, I really don't see what the problem is. LtPowers 13:52, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
You can't really sleep there, it's a hermitage. The sleeping facilities there all need to be booked weeks in advance, because it's a religious retreat. Accepting Isha Yoga Centre as having sleeping facilities, then we could count every temple in Thailand as an article, as every temple has a monk's quarters where you could stay. About WDW, it has an immense size and millions of annual visitors and many many attractions. However, if it had just a few buildings (it doesn't I know), then indeed it would have to be listed at a nearby town. I visited WDW sleeping in Kissimmee.
Just look at the map to see how small Isha Yoga Centre really is, it really cannot be compared with WDW. The scale uses 0.05 km (!), something I've never seen before on any map. Just looking at the See listings is laughable, they describe rooms in the buildings. One listing, to give an example, is the "audio/visual centre", with the description "Move on to the audio/visual center where you will be shown a short introductory video which will give you a better idea of the temple, its background and history. The video is played alternately in both Tamil - the local language, and in English". Many museums I know have these kind of introductory videos, those in no way should be See listings of their own. --globe-trotter 14:34, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
In any case, "can you sleep there?" is a sloppy criterion which has never made sense to me. You can sleep at hotels, campsites, homestays and all manner of other places, but that does not make any of them articles.--burmesedays 21:44, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Speedy keep. The original vfd was not "rigged". Even if you discount votes from anyone without a long track record at Wikitravel, there were 4 keep votes and 2 delete votes. And discounting votes from new users is not fair; even if you suspect that someone is voting multiple times, their arguments should still be taken into account (and the vfd page does not follow a straight majoritarian voting system either). Nothing has changed with the article since then, so a second nomination seems inappropriate and a waste of time. --PeterTalk 17:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
To respond to points made, though (and this would be more appropriately done on the article's talk page): 1) for every time someone asserts "this is an attraction," I can assert "this is a destination." Perhaps developing formal criteria would be worthwhile, since this is not the first time this has come up. 2) Why would we name the article after some random nearby town that no one visits, if this is the place people go to? In any rate, the vfd page is not appropriate for that type of discussion, which should be done on the article talk page. 3) For my (and others') opinions on why this article should not be deleted, see the first vfd. --PeterTalk 17:17, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Formal criteria would be useful if they stop this happening again. On your point 2), I thought that putting listings into the nearest town was standard Wikitravel procedure, or have we all been doing that wrong?
On the purported lack of fame of Coimbatore (which I would dispute anyway as it is the 2nd largest city in Tamil Nadu beaten only by Chennai, and it has its own international airport), it seems that Wikitravel:What is an article? deals with that: If an attraction is really famous and travellers may not know the city or region it is in, then create an article with the attraction name as title, but make it a redirect to the city or region and put the description in the city or region article.
I would suggest leaving this here for now, or moving it to Wikitravel talk:What is an article?, rather than burying it on the article talk page, as it is a rather important policy discussion. --burmesedays 21:44, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
I don't think this is ready to get swept aside, and I resent any notion of speedy disposal. I am astonished that long-time users are voting to keep this. If it were a spa resort or a Methodist retreat with five times as many buildings and twice the land area located 20 miles from Childress, Texas, there is no way in hell any of you would be voting to keep it as an article. But because it's in oh-so-mysterious India land of yogis, you are voting to keep it. As globetrotter pointed out, this article is embarrassingly detailed for an establishment that is in no way historic, and I think it makes us look like touts. Like maybe I can throw a religious retreat together somewhere and get my own Wikitravel article too. This place is essentially an accommodation that must be booked in advance plus non-historic religious facilities, and I cannot wrap my head around the fact that some veteran users are being fooled by the original writer's detail into thinking that this place merits its own article. If it had been written a little more poorly like most such attempts, I think everyone would see it for what it is -- just another place trying to make money. texugo 00:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
The rules at wiaa clearly state that individual companies should not have their own articles. I heavily object to a speedy, as this article is a violation of Wikitravel policy, and thus those in favor should give arguments why this should warrant an exception. The exceptions section states the following: "Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article." I think both of these do not apply here. The Isha Yoga Centre is easily done as a day-trip from Coimbatore and does not require an overnight stay. The information would not overload that article, as this article gives a ridiculous wall of text that is in any way too detailed for a travel guide. As I read it, exceptions are made for obvious very large and popular attractions like Walt Disney World and Angkor Wat, not for any company that happens to be somewhat out in the countryside. --globe-trotter 04:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Cedar Point is immediately adjacent to Sandusky but we still have an article on it because it's a popular attraction that people are looking for separate from going to Sandusky for a visit. Darien Lake is a theme park resort within easy day-trip distance from Batavia (New York), Buffalo, and Rochester (New York), but I wouldn't recommend merging it because it is a separate destination in its own right, not part of a trip to Batavia. LtPowers 13:01, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
As I wrote before, I'm not against articles for big theme parks and attractions with millions of visitors occupying large amounts of space. Smaller theme parks, like Tivoli , shouldn't have their own article. This is already common practice. Exceptions should be made on a case-by-case basis and only if they fall within the policy guideline of wiaa. I think the Isha Yoga Centre cannot be compared with big theme parks, a better analogy would be small attractions in the countryside, like a museum or another religious retreat. There is also an Amsterdam Yoga Centre, I don't think that should be a separate district of Amsterdam. And the Onze Lieve Vrouwe van de Besloten Tuin, a similar religious retreat in the countryside of the Netherlands, I don't think that should be its own article. I think the exceptions section was not meant to include these kind of attractions. --globe-trotter 14:31, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
My comment from the previous VFD discussion addresses this point:
While this doesn't meet the standard Wikitravel:What is an article criteria, I tend to agree with Peter that it's now a complete article (including maps), so I would classify it using the "content is too extensive to merge" criteria under which we make occasional exceptions.
If there was no Isha Yoga Centre article and someone was asking where to list it we obviously wouldn't tell them to start a new article, but there is now a complete, useful article about this place and no compelling reason that I see for getting rid of it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:39, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
My vote for speedy keep has nothing to do with the article in question, and everything to do with the fact that the vfd was already resolved. In general, the vfd page is not a great place for a nuanced discussion on where to put content—that is better done on the article talk page. And this clearly cannot be a case for deletion, as at the most it would be redirected, if content were to be merged elsewhere. Again, the vfd page is not necessary for such a merge discussion. --PeterTalk 17:26, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
This opens the door for every large resort owner (or whichever marketing company they engage) to create an article about their property, which, instead of being disallowed by Wikitravel:What is an article, is apparently now OK. That's not the way I see Wikitravel, and I find it seriously disappointing that some others do.
Peter, are you saying that your vote to keep this non-article is based on a technicality of delete vis-a-vis merge, rather than the points you originally made?--burmesedays 22:31, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Nope, my speedy keep vote was based on the fact that this article's vfd already concluded, and that I don't think it appropriate to re-vfd. That just leads to going-nowhere efforts like this eyesore, which will probably languish here for months without purpose. --PeterTalk 23:53, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Peter, we have Votes for undeletion, which similarly admits that the VfD process isn't immune to mistakes. You yourself have nominated things for undeletion which had previously passed through a VfD process. Aren't mistakes in the other direction just as likely? A sort of "Votes for Unkeeping", if you will? texugo 00:47, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Ryan, it's not at all "too extensive to merge" if we cut it back to a level of detail that isn't plainly ridiculous. I could write an article about my arsehole local Catholic church grounds that would have more See and Do items and a larger map than this place, but just because I cast it onto Wikitravel fully formed with great detail doesn't mean that it should be automatically kept as an article. This is like arguing that a museum should get its own article just because someone went to the trouble of describing in detail what's in each room. It's just far too much information. I also agree with burmesedays argument that it sets a precedent to allow any and all similar business owners to fly into a lot of their own ramblingly detailed articles. And Peter, regardless of the fact that a redirect would remain in its place, I'd say this is more of a vfd in the sense that the majority of this article needs to be flat out deleted, with only a short listing at Coimbatore. Leave all that detailed, overhyped stuff to their website. texugo 22:43, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm not even sure if we should be redirecting companies, the [Wikitravel:How_to_redirect_a_page|redirecting]] policy does not state anything about that. Should we make a redirect for Ronny's New York Pizza and redirect it to Bangkok/Sukhumvit? Or redirect British Museum to London/Bloomsbury? As far as I know that has not been common practice, but I don't know if and where discussion about this has taken place. I only proposed to redirect as there otherwise might be broken links.
However, more important is I think what Ryan states. It was probably the business owner who created this article from outline to guide status within 24 hours . This is easily done, because its a small sight, so it is quickly at guide status. Because its now guide status, the community accepts this article as being "too long to merge", even though the article rambles on about minor details and none of the sights have any real cultural or historic value. Now the business owner has a full article dedicated to its own business, accepted by the Wikitravel community, and so immensely detailed that its own website looks bleak in comparison. I consider this the mother of all touts, and it seriously questions the credibility of Wikitravel as a whole. --globe-trotter 23:52, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
The writer himself admits that he's a visitor/follower there. I think ashrams should be seen like all-in-resorts, just with a strong spiritual and a sight-seeing component. It's hard to judge how many visitors ever make it there, but it's a fact that many of these places have interesting festivities and temples, making it also an attraction to visitors. I tend to agree with Ryan that it seems a waste to delete properly formatted articles, but I wouldn't want to create any kind of policy in favour of ashrams having articles of their own. Their promotional activities are more aggressive than resorts :-) However, I fear for a huge city like Coimbatore (bigger than Amsterdam, for the record) if it would have to absorb all small destinations in the large Coimbatore (region) area. This might be one of the larger ones, or due to its US centre a more popular one among international travellers, but there are at least some 20 other ashrams in that area. As a popular one it could have a get-out listing in Coimbatore perhaps, but I really wonder if the Coimbatore (city) article is a good idea for a full listing.
As an aside: I think fear of redirects is only ever a matter of policies and editors, and can only be helpful to travellers. I wouldn't want to embark on a mission to create them, but I would never delete one either. Justme 05:52, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
And now for something completely different (not really completely, but I felt the urge to use the phrase).
I have briefly read through the article and a few impressions may be worth noting;
This is a small place with a lot of detail for it's size in the description.
The policy appears to try to separate things into black and white. Many things are grey. This seems to be one of them, and to me it is towards the non-article end of the scale.
The tone of the article does seem a bit hyped, but I have seen worse.
This does look a bit like the sharp edge at the top of the slippery slope.
I think Peter has it exactly right. The travel topic idea is a fine one. The overview should be linked from India, particular ashrams from the overview and appropriate regional articles. Pashley 23:22, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
Suggestion. Since this article has previously survived a VFD nomination, and since there isn't a clear consensus to delete it, I would suggest moving this discussion to Talk:Isha Yoga Centre. Does anyone feel that would be inappropriate, or can this be moved and the discussion continued there? -- wrh2 12:56, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
Any objections? Going twice... -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:12, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Result: Kept. I've moved the discussion to Talk:Isha Yoga Centre. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:39, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
I'd like to point out that there was no consensus to Keep this article either. Rather, consensus seems to lean toward handling this kind of thing as a travel topic, and this article still needs to be changed into another less-detailed form to avoid setting a precedent for every ashram in India to be clamoring for their own article. Regardless of the fact that we haven't fully agreed on what to do with this, it is nevertheless a non-historical religious attraction which shouldn't have its own article, and shouldn't be presented in such excruciating detail-- Bangkok's Grand Palace and Wat Pho complex are a thousand times more culturally and touristically important and reams could be written about them if we went into this much detail (and it would be a far more interesting read, to boot). The above discussion might have been forgotten and abandoned, but I still despise the existence of this article. We shouldn't allow the ridiculous level of detail given fool us into thinking that our normal policies don't apply to this article. I for one, should have noticed Ryan's "suggestion" to bury this again- the whole issue would probably get resolved sooner on the VfD page than it will here. I can hardly think of a better existing example of what our attractions policy was trying to avoid. I have nothing but *SEETHING HATE* for this article. I'm sure it makes the business owner very happy.texugo 00:30, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
I have placed an "under discussion" disclaimer on the article that will hopefully dissuade other potential retreat owners from looking to this page as an example of something we fully embrace.texugo 00:45, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
I don't have anything against an ashram travel topic, where Isha Yoga Centre could be a listing. The Meditation in Thailand article could be an example. However, that doesn't really change the nature of this discussion. The Isha Yoga Centre should not be its own article per WT:WIAA, it should only be a listing placed in the city article (and additionally in a travel topic if someone is interested in writing it). Just read WT:WIAA, it's crystal-clear that only geographical units get their own articles, and that companies do not. --globe-trotter 12:25, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
I agree with globe-trotter and texugo. Where or not the original vfd was rigged, the delete arguments appealed to strong policy. The keep case largely considered the complexity involved in merging, and other non-policy reasons (such as how nice the attraction is). --Inas 19:36, 18 December 2011 (EST)