Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaj Marg

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sahaj Marg

Sahaj Marg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There are no sufficient published sources on the subject to afford an encyclopedic article that complies with WP:V and WP:NPOV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Need to think about my vote and..., and if it is deleted, it MUST be WP:SALT or protected. This page has been through years of nonsense based around trying to use blogs as sources and other weak sourced criticisms and people trying to use this page as a WP:SOAP. Sethie 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No third-party sources; fails to meet notability test; blogging occurring on talk page. Renee 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Sethie's comment above. Request protection against re-creation, with admin or arbitration appeal available for those who want to re-create. Otherwise there is a serious risk of edit wars/blogging morphing into re-creation wars. Renee 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Sources either primary or newspapers where the editorial process is disputed by involved editors. Also the talk page is non-functional due to blogging, shouting and POV-flooding. Though the talk page activity is no reason to delete an article, it certainly makes saving it seem less appealing to those of us that have tried. Bksimonb 21:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE As it is now, The Sahaj Marg artilce is being used to PROMOTE rather than INFORM. The article is presently used as a PR vehicle by "biased" (disciples) editors and admins using the article to send "searchers" to their PR site SRCM (Chennai) or other "meditation" sites using POV references and "reading Material" that are POV and not up to WIKI criteria, IMO.

SRCM (Shahjahanpur) (Family of Founder) is presently in court with "SRCM (Chennai) for control of the society and the Material that it possesses, including the "trade Marks" according to the family of the Founder. As the matter is in court, the material available from the court is "un-available"...Article could be revived when the court case is over and ONE party controls the SRCM society and "name" (registered in California by SRCM (Chennai) in 1997, and the SAHAJ MARG Registered Trade Mark (by SRCM (Chennai) also in 1997.

Blogging started with the attitudes and "continuous rejections of material" and "biased" POV of editors and admins involved..

I looked at the article again, and there no reason to delete. (no vandalism, not long discussions, not much disagreement that WIKI could surely address. There is much material available that is WIKI acceptable on Sahaj Marg, and now that we know who wants to delete, it should be a simple thing for a MEDIATOR to make the decision needed. (like a researcher's book from "oxford University", and books from other individuals,) that Promoters of THE MISSION will not and did not read, so?? And, the article still has "encyclopedic" value in showing the "division" or Seperation of these two groups who are "registered" in different countries. We can show that there is a LEGAL DISPUTE without getting into PROMOTING or "maligning".

SUGGESTION Appoint a NEUTRAL UNBIASED MEDIATOR, who would take out all the PR and controversial statements and references and leave the article PROTECTED until the court case is over and ONE SIDE has the NAME, (the claim to the MASTER(s), the registered Trade Mark, maybe even the MATERIAL REAL ESTATE (but that does not matter) and then we can "unlock" it for editors again...

If WIKI can't deal with this small issue, without deleting it and simply "giving up" then WIKI is not a true "encyclopedia" and is swayed by Religious, Cabals (cross denominational) who have their members become "admins"...(suggested or ordered..to PROTECT THE RELIGION, the COUNTRY, the NATION)

NEUTRAL MEANS a mediator who is:

• SECULAR... (not religious, meditator or disciple of a MASTER, at "arm's length" from Religions and the SRCM)
• NOT A MEMBER OF THE "INDIA PROJECT" or other "Commercial", anti-FREEDOM OF SPEECH Groups interested in stifling "criticism" of Indian Products, businesses, and organizations.
• Believes in the WIKI PROJECT, and its ability to deal with "controversial' and "complex" issues.
• Has enough time to read and the ability to evaluate "neutrally", the material presented.
• Is able to stand "disagreement" and not so quick to "eliminate" the opposition.

For those who think this is too long, Sorry...

4d-don--don 00:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The fact that most editors agree about their disagreement on what content should go under Sahaj Marg pages is enough to support this AfD. And as mentioned above, matter which is being dealt in the courts should not be discussed or pulled in here at all, for first none of us are lawyers and second, there is no way to confirm which side/claim is true. It's just a sad fact that a spiritual practice which holds as high a promise as human integration and universal brotherhood, is marred by allegations, accusations, lack of unity (let alone brotherhood) at its roots. Oh well, does any of this sound new to humanity? Duty2love 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the deletion reasons of the above editors. James 12:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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.