User talk:O. Pen Sauce/Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP)

Hi, Need some help again. The mesg reads..

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and conform with our NPOV policy, this article or section may require cleanup. The current version of the article or section reads like an advertisement.

Not sure what I should do to clean up.. I have read the NPOV policy.. but I am not sure what part I could change so this article does not read like an advertisement. Could someone guide me to the points that can be neutralized so it looks less like an advertisement and more like a Wikipedia article. I have taken a few things out.. to me it looks like a Wikipedia article.. guess I am missing something. This is a very new approach to Yoga and is catching on very fast among people around the world. I don't want to advertise it.. so can someone help me?

Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantiayp (talk • contribs)

While it sounds less promotional now, the remaining issues are whether or not it is a notable type of Yoga, and whether all of the material presented is verifiable. Now that the article is under consideration for deletion, you'll need to come up with evidence of how it meets Wikipedia's notability and verifiablility criterias. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how and where

Thanks so much Jamie. So how and where do I show verification and notability?

Next Step

Discussion among those practicing AYP (in the forum at <http://www.aypsite.org/forum>) shows a fast growing number of people reporting extremely good results from this practice. The same is indicated by respectable sales rank (and unanimously high user rating) of AYP books on Amazon. I am a longtime wikipedia contributor, with contributions on yoga topics that predate the introduction of AYP. I've practiced yoga and meditation for decades, and I am extremely impressed with the radical, unique effectiveness of this system. I have no financial or other icky connections...I just think it's effective (and I love Wikipedia).

I have gone through the article to ensure that it's hype-free and accurate. I share the exasperation with the self-promotional way in which this material was introduced to Wikipedia. However, I also deem the material to be amply worth inclusion.O. Pen Sauce 17:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entry lacks any real information beyond advertising the product. The claims about it being linked to venerable sources such as Patanjali and even the Bible need to be supported. 'Criticisms' should be actual criticisms by outside sources, with references. Information is needed about who the royalties are going to. This is a sizeable business posing as philanthropic and 'free'; when in actual fact the books, sold on Amazon, and heavily overpriced (eg about £10 for a tiny volume of around 100 pages in medium-to-large type). This is not to deny they are not reasonable essays - but if Wiki is about factual material then, based on what we have, it could more or less be summed in a couple of lines or so. The page may have been written in good faith, but it does not alter the fact that it is basically little more than promotional material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs) 09:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]