Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur)

Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails notability test; there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to afford an encyclopedic article that complies with WP:N, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Renee 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Delete as nominated. Renee 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Request protection against re-creation with opportunity for appeal to admin or arbitration board. Most arguments over the original Shri Ram Chandra Mission page were over (lack of) quality sources with a tendency to disregard Wiki policies. Renee 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't salt titles unless they're being chronically recreated and there's a clear community consensus against them. If this is recreated, the new article is speediable as a recreation of deleted material unless the problems brought up here are addressed in the new article. The avenue for appeal is the talk page of the administrator who closes this discussion, or deletion review.--Chaser - T 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. So if someone recreates the page with the same name, does it undergo some sort of review or is it just made? Also, since those names of deleted pages are on our watchpages, if they re-appear will they appear on our watchpage again, or how do we know if someone has recreated it beyond a search every day? Renee 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete same problems as the other related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete on same grounds as for Sahaj Marg article. Duty2love 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete same reasons as per related article Sahaj Marg Bksimonb 11:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE I looked at the article 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 (like a researcher's book from "oxford", 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...
Don--don 22:40, 22 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.