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 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Sri Ram Chandra Consciousness

[edit]
Institute of Sri Ram Chandra Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


p.s. I was the original author of this article; can we get a speedy deletion? Renee 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THE TRUTH: ISRC is a schism from SRCM (Chennai), and they offer PAM (Pranahuti Aided Meditation), not SAHAJ Marg ("easy path" according to the founder) which is now a registered TRADE MARK (by SRCM (Chennai) meaning "Natural Path" in true SPIRITUAL fashion... These actions are defended by biased admins, also disciples of MASTERs, promoting such ways of LIFE. That's like saying that the protestants (schism) offer a form of "catholic" prayer called "(a different name)...IS THAT NOT OBVIOUS POV push, according to WISER ADMINS?..If there is a revival of these article (SRCM (Chennai), SRCM (Shahjahanpur), Institute of Ram Chandra Counsciousness (ISRC), ADMINS who practice MEDITATION with GURUS should disqualify themselves from MEDIATION on these sites and adding their POV to an already "POV-charged" and vitriolic legal, and even (alleged) violent, dispute... THIS SOUNDS MORE LIKE (DIVISIVE) RELIGION (and it is according to the FOUNDER in his autobiography), not a "UNITING" SPIRITUALITY... WELCOME to the REAL WORLD OF MEDITATION GROUPS...
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". We can show that these are two seperate groups and schism of the Original Group, without getting into PROMOTING on side of the other, 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 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the article, but I think that Don's ideas for a neutral party to mediate are of central importance. My experience with Renee, when she came to the Alice Bailey article under an RfC, is that while she claimed to be neutral, she was highly partisan from the beginning. So while I can not say that she is wrong here (I do not know), I can say her claims of neutrality can not be trusted. Kwork 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add something about the vote of Jamesd1 (below) to 'delete'. If you take a look at his contributions since he started editing on Wikipedia about six months ago, you will see that from the time he began editing up until his 'delete' vote here, he has been a single purpose editor; editing only the Alice Bailey article. With that in mind, it is difficult for me to see what knowledge Jamesd1 could have of Sri Ram Chandra Consciousness in general, or the article about it in particular. On the other hand, considering the enormous help Renee gave to Jamesd1 in his arguments with me about the Alice Bailey article, it is hard not to view his vote here as a pay-back for her help there. Out of fairness, I think he should remove his vote. Kwork 16:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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.
More