Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoga Psychology
I'm gonna make this comment first, then place a vote.  I'm not a staunch supporter of anyone or anything that makes a claim to new frontiers on an ancient practice.  Yoga has stood the test of time, and anyone claiming to have "created" or "investigated" aspect(s) of it previously unconsidered is gonna have to put forward a compelling argument.  That said, there are a number of fine words in the entry/article that amount to nothing else readily digestible.  I'll go through a few examples one-by-one; ''"...psychology, for the author, is a developing science which is considered to be a part of philosophy. Traditionally philosophy has included the branches of ontology, metaphysics, ethics and epistemology, but '''Shrii Shrii Anandamurtijii has expanded the scope of philosophy to include psychology and spiritual cult (practices)'''."'' - this is an original claim.  If he "expanded it", then he is claiming to have done the  on this, and it needs to have independent, third party sources to support it.  I see none.  Next, we have; ''..."Shrii Shrii Anandamurti '''claims''' the connection between glands, subglands, nerves and the traditional theory of cakras (or plexi, psycho–spiritual centers) that are described in this theory on '''a new vision''' touching topics that traditionally belong to the domain of psychology and not only to the spiritual and intuitional science.'' -  that again demonstrates an issue with , and I have '''bolded''' the primary text that develops the impression.  These are just a couple of the examples from the get go, more are embedded in the text.  Now, after having given some supporting reason(s) for why I do not believe there is anything "new" to Yoga that hasn't existed for literally thousands of years that isn't "claimed as new research," I hereby vote
— User:Barada, 05:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:OR (Wikipedia:No original research)