Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Namaste Guild

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. Sr13 08:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Namaste Guild

The Namaste Guild (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable organization. No third-party references that I can find. (Also, it was just established on 27 June 2007) Sancho 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. None of the external links in the article support the notability of the organization, so it fails notability and verifiability. I'm just shy of speedy deleting it; the fact that it was established so recently is what nearly puts me over the edge to do so. —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- FamedDeletionist 22:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I proposed deletion to give some time to clean up the page--that was perhaps a little optimistic of me. I probably should have simply speedied as G11 based on the original version before I cleaned it a little. DGG 22:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

These comments are completely subjective and are opinion, sir. Just like everything else that is written and published. That is not a sufficient grounding for deletion of our article. What would be sufficient is if the article were slanderous, demeaning, violent, defamatory, or blatantly false; for which our article is neither. To prove otherwise you, the editors, just like at the Council of Nicea (325 A.D./C.A.), either have to change the rules to fit your doctrine of literary discrimination or provide a burden of proof. The Namaste Guild 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What specifically is so objectionable? It is difficult to correct what is in error, when one does not understand the implication of impropriety, or its source. We are good people, doing something that is a benefit to humanity. Where is the harm in that? And why the insurrection of deletion for a topic that is less than 12 hours in age? There are a number of articles on this medium that I could site as objectionable... however their articles have as much right to exist as ours do. That being said, since we at The Namasté Guild love a challenge, we will hear your comments and meet the community's requests when they are peacefully (rather than adversarially) presented. The Namaste Guild 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion, even when the cause being promoted is a benevolent one. Article contains no reliable sources, and would qualify for speedy deletion if the AfD process had not already begun. An organization that was only started on 27 June might not have had any time to be mentioned in the press. After a few months, if this organization does important things and is noticed in print, it might be time for an article. EdJohnston 22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Promotion... an interesting term. Everything is a promotion, regardless. Every article on Wikipedia is a promotion or advocation of a point of view of some sort. From Magnetic Levitation Trains, to BioDiesel, to Dioxins, to Religion... if something is written about the topic, it is a promotion. The Namaste Guild 22:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: no. Slightly longer answer: hell no.

Fuller answer: calling every article on Wikipedia a "promotion" is only true if you define "promotion" so broadly as to be utterly meaningless. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, no sources, not even claims of accomplishments real-world impact, self-promotion. Nothing here. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment. Also, no proof of existence... Sancho 02:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I doubt the Red Cross was notable nine days after its establishment. They can come back when they've accomplished something more notable than a website. Acroterion _(talk) 03:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete no references asserting it or its notability. The article also admits its lack of notability because it was a recently formed venture. It is also a blatant advertisement for their services, even if they are a non-profit (which I'm not sure of), and there are a lot of peacock words and phrases. Agreement with Acroterion, these might be the most wonderful giving people ever, but until they are notable they don't get an article. Tdmg 05:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This doesn't even manage to crawl out of G11, let alone A7! — Coren ^(talk) 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Since my company, Broadwave Group, Inc., has been a direct beneficiary of financial kindness from The Namaste Guild, I feel it is necessary that I speak up for this organization. In fact, this organization was only established as a legal corporate entity a week ago; yes, that is true. However, I would like to shed some light on the issue that perhaps is not being considered. The people behind this organization have been contributing to support various projects over the last 10 years; projects that no one else gave consideration to; projects that were on the verge of defeat; projects that were worthwhile. My company is one of those projects. Though we are not required to disclose this, I believe it is relevant; The Namaste Guild over the course of the last 9 months has assisted my company in underwriting nearly $1.2 billion USD in loans, of which that sum is to be infused over a 6 month period. The first $400 million USD of these loans were received on July 2, 2007. The Namaste Guild is an organization of people that do not like 'spotlight' attention; however, this day in age no one takes any organization serious if they don't have some sort of web-presence. Why they picked 'Wikipedia' is understandable. If people want to find this organization, they will have to search for it. Thanks to this organization, and its people (whom prefer to remain anonymous), my company can now grow as it has desired for so long. Andrewdvalles3 18:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Opinion of WP:SPA is disqualified. Shalom ^Hello 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

—Note: the preceeding user was created about two hour ago and has made no contribution beyond this AfD. — Coren ^(talk) 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a basic, but unfortunately widespread, misunderstanding about this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a means of generating notability. Wikipedia exists to document notability. Acroterion _(talk) 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Broadwave Group, Inc. [1] does not appear to be a charity. Is the Namaste Guild a venture capital organization? Acroterion _(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Stronger Support. I am a copy-editor for the Monitor Weekly in Kampala, Uganda. Educated at Oxford. I have written for newspapers, encyclopaedias, magazines, radio, and television news for over thirty years. I wrote the article now posted, as Reference #4, onto the article in question. To the previous comment made I pose this question: How does anything or anyone become notable or attain notability without being written or chronicled about? According to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia of which I note, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules," and "Wikipedia has a code of conduct," and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" then I must be benign as this article meets all of those requirements. The information therein is neutral in language, tenor, and metre; nothing in it can be considered profane; and if there are no firm rules or legislation, then I substantiate no one can establish a foundation for argument to the contrary. In the words of (the late) Senator Patrick Moynihan of New York, "You are entitled your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts." If someone disagrees with what is said in this article, then it can be edited since "Wikipedia is free content." Before commenting further, gentlemen and ladies, ask yourselves, are you acting with integrity, or as an editorial censor? Monitor-Weekly 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Opinion of WP:SPA is disqualified. Shalom ^Hello 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

—Note: the preceeding user was created about one hour ago and has made no contribution beyond that article and this AfD. — Coren ^(talk) 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The comments about account creation are not only irrelevant and elitist, they are also quite petty. The Namaste Guild 20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Elitism at its finest. When you have no other alternatives to our points of rebuttal, you resort to blatant crass. We gladly volunteer that we asked others to assist us. That is not against the rules (since there are none in accordance with Five Pillars of Wikipedia), and this is a tactic that is practiced everywhere; especially in politics. We could allege the same thing at your attention. We would also like to elaborate that we were offered help by Sancho; and the information that was provided was extremely helpful. With that information we enlisted support. However, to speculate that we told these people what to say is not only false, but also irrelevant when the facts are weighted... we were encouraged to do so. The Namaste Guild 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There is no evidence that this organization meets the notablity criteria. Please note that this non-vote is entirely on whether or not the organization meets those criteria, and is in no way an attack on the organization's worthiness or moral value. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Namasté Guild is not a venture capital organisation. Such a term would suggest that we take an ownership stake in the projects, or maintain a contract with individuals, to whom we provide scholarships, grants, and interest-free loans; that is not part of our modus operandi. Our process follows a very simple principal: ask and it is given... and we do so without reservation or condition. The Namaste Guild 22:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Forgive me but LOL, they've existed about a fortnight. No chance to have notability. NamasteG, as to your assertion that defamation/nastiness or advertisement are the only criteria for deletion, I hope you've realised now that it's notability/ whether an organisation has been noted at length in reputable, mainstream newspapers or is otherwise worthy of note, that is at issue here. This suggested deletion implies no deep negative judgement about your organisation, it's not personal it's just at this time it's not suitable for an encyclopedia article.Merkinsmum 02:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Maybe someday in the future this group will gain notability per Wikipedia's policies. Regardless, this is not the proper forum for self-promotion. Resolute 04:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Bearian 20:23, 6 July 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.