Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advance Party (religious movement)


 * 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   Keep - nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) ——RyanLupin • (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Advance Party (religious movement)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable article. Orphaned article with no reliable sources.Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Comment Hmm. 4 books. Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Ashgate and Routledge - 2 of the world's best universities and 2 major academic presses. Unreliable sources? Well, one learns something new every day. It is highly recommended that one familiarize oneself with the rules on reliable sources and deletion policies and guidelines before nominating articles for AfD. Cheers, John Z (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Reliable sources that establish notablity are important - these are what I was talking about in the nomination. The sources in the article do not state how this organization is notable nor do they focus on the the Advance Party as the subject of any of these studies. In this article, reliable sources that establish notabilty are lacking. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, study of the relevant guidelines may repay one in understanding what notability means at Wikipedia. While they are welcome and given substantial weight, sources stating an organization is notable are not required.  If reliable sources treat a topic in a substantial way, we presume the RS considers it notable, otherwise, why would they have taken note of it?  The article contains a substantial quote from one of the RS's.  Have you considered that your standards for substantial sourcing may be uniquely high - as in the past, dozens of pages devoted to a topic have been deemed insufficient.  Also, it is generally deemed proper to research a topic before nominating it for deletion.  I confess I haven't had time to look at this one. In any case, I was replying to what you said in the nomination.  It would be helpful if your nominations were more precise and clearer, as your comment above was.John Z (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Thank you for your suggestions. I appreciate your comments on my research methods and I am always open to advice on how to improve them. Also, after looking at the sources for this article, I found little more than passing references, and these did not establish notablity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: I have no idea who these people are, but their references are impeccable. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete formation of a organization is not a notable act. Getting a mention in texts is not a notable act.  There is no mention of what makes this group notable.  There are literally millions of religious movements.  If you like I can start one right now.  For all I know, from the article, this organization is 3 members large and has never done anything beyond sit in mom's basement and muse about what's right or wrong with the world.  It's not impossible that this organization is notable, I just currently see no reason to believe it. -Verdatum (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite sufficient material to meet the criteria usually used for political parties. We try not to judge which ones are actually important in a political sense, as long as real substantial existence can be proven. Otherwise this gets very subject to questions of bias. DGG (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply/Question I am confused by you statement, "sufficient material to meet the criteria usually used for political parties." I thought this discussion was about a religious movement. Are we talking about two different things? We are at least using two different sets of criteria for notability. As a religious movement, I do not think this organization is notable. I do not know of its role, if any, it plays in politics. Could you please expand? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and reliable sources find the subject notable enough. ~ priyanath talk 15:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. One wonders what exactly would qualify as a notable subject or a well-referenced article in the mind of deletionist extraordinaire User:Ism schism. One wonders how my artiocles would be left in the encyclopedia is this user were to have its way. User:Ism schism needs to stop disrupting Wikipedia in order to make whatever point they think that they are making. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This group seems to be a fundamentalist splinter group of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya /BKIVV) which is also known as  Adhyatmik Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya ( AIVV, Prajapita Brahma Kumaris also redirect here.) Perhaps it should be moved back to the other name cf talk page proposal; earlier, pre-redirect versions of the  Adhyatmik Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya article had more content but were not referenced.  There even was an Arbcom case about BKWSU, and there's a section of that article devoted to this party, there's not much additional here. It is not too clear how some, not all, of the references are being used in this article, but it seems notable, something which has been the object of scholarly attention- e.g. John Walliss's book.  Like many of the other articles up for deletion, the proposers may have found ones with problems, but like most they seem to be solvable through normal editing, merging and redirecting at worst, not deletion.  Deletion is a last resort.  Above all, this needs the attention of editors who know something about it, I tried to notify some. In their absence, I suggest Keep.John Z (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable enough and good references exist. Orderinchaos 07:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes it, and its relationship with the BKWSU as a splinter group, is well document in Dr John Walliss's seminal book on the subject, "... Reflexive Traditions" which is itself widely discussed within the field of the sociology of religion. The sociology of religion is a narrow field, and we should not be discourage by cultural prejudices. Its a small Indian religion but still many times bigger than other guru traditions featured on the Wiki.
 * Given the proposing deletionist's involvement with traditional Vaishnaitism/Krishna-consciousness, I'd have to question "issues of faith" coming into play with this proposal as the AIVV are, essentially Shivaite and, arguably, "anti-Bhatki yoga" ... or at the very least highly revisionist.  Adherents number in the thousands all over India and internationally. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment As this information still does not make sense to me, and there are numerous keep votes above, I change my vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin Nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2008 (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.