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 - Article was deleted in previous AfD on 26 September 2007: (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur). There is no evidence of any new third party sources found to support an article that would comply with WP:NPOV. Re-hashing the same arguments again and again does not seem to be productive. To recreate this article, or similar articles, sufficient secondary sources need to be found for a balanced representation of the subject; primary sources on their own, are insufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Founder of a non-notable cult. Although there are plenty of Google hits, they all seem to be created by members of this group. Dougie WII 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. That he was the founder of a cult is the only hint of notability assertion that I found in the article. Yet even that is written as if it were a mere footnote. --Blanchardb 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Written as a brief history of somebody who doesn't appear to be notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to keep, per DGG and in deference to the under construction tag on the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- Some more assertion of notability is on Talk:Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur which motivated me to remove the speedy tag, but this has not yet been included in the article, but there also wasn't much time yet... --Tikiwont 20:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE

The article was just begun when the "instant delete" sign came up from Dougie WII, So I stopped to deal with this process. I will continue on the article only after this process is complete. The organizations he founded are now three seperate entities: SRCM (Chennai), SRCM (Shahjahanpur) and ISRC (Institute of Ram Chandra Consciousness). There are also Two Research Foundations: Sahaj marg Spirituality Foundation (SMSF), CREST, in Asia and four SMRTI (Sahaj Marg Research and Teaching Institute) in Europe, USA, India, and Dubai. Is over 300,000 members and 60,000 present for the last seminar, not a "notable" achievement? (How can you tell if the GOOGLE hits are by MEMBERS of the group. There are "researchers" and "seekers" (potential members) and other interested "governments" and UN of which this group is a member (the DPI Program). The group is in many countries as one can readily see at this site: http://www.srcm.org/srcminfo/servlet/CenterTree?NodeId=0&ShowChildren=0 --Roicharlemagne 20:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just a note, if you stop while we do this, you endanger the article. What you give is something to be considered, so I would recommend working on the article while we do this. Remember, you have five days. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The article needs a thorough rewrite, but there seems to be plenty out there to write an article with. Martijn Hoekstra 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another related article deleted for non-notability: Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Shahjahanpur%29 -- Dougie WII 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Membership does not denote notability. I don't see much for non-biased, reputable, reliable references. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now From the talk page, it appears thee is likely to be enough material. I remind everyone of the existence of the ((underconstruction)) tag. DGG (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is an attempt to re-introduce text from two deleted articles that were deleted because of a lack of secondary sources, see this and this. This article suffers from exactly the same problems, namely,

1. Copyright violations; most of this was pulled virtually ver batim from here or this.
2. Absolutely no secondary sources on the subject of the article. If you click on the "sources" the only secondary sources talk about a school completely unrelated to the life of this person and the book talks about Sufism, not this person.
3. Currently reads like a PR piece similar to the organizational websites from which the text is drawn. Renee 00:13, 10 November 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.