Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex-premie.org


 * 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. I was waffling between no consensus and delete on this for a while, but the keep arguments are not persuasive. The delete argument that not enough non-trivial and independent sources exist for the site was never fully rebutted and no other such sources were found. I am willing to restore if more sources are found. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ex-premie.org

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

This site would appear to fail WEB for notability. There appear to be only a handful reliable sources that have ever referred to the site; none of them appear to have exceeded a brief summary of the nature of the site's content, as required by WP:WEB. Jayen 466 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Jayen 466 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Website-related deletion discussions.  Jayen 466 06:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Notice of this discussion given at talkpages of WP:WEBSITES and WP:RELIGION. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively: redirect, see below (Nik Wright's entry) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC) updated 10:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Keeping it to "keep" again, after an additional reliable source was added to the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (primary author) Keep - I know the base isn't too broad, but it satisfies the needs of WP:WEB: it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself;
 * Comment (disclaimer: I have a declared COI on the subject, submitting this comment for uninvolved editors assessment)
 * Per WP:WEB, a website is considered notable only if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. [...] excluding Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address [...] or a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site"


 * The sources provided in the article, besides the one by Ron Geaves, all fall within the exceptions stated, as follows:
 * Mather - mention of the web address only
 * Good Weekend - self-reference by the founder of the site, not an independent description of the site contents
 * Rocky Mountain news - Trivial coverage, does not describe the contents of the site
 * The Register - Does not discuss the content of the site, just a mention of its existence by the webmaster of the site, not an independent description of the site contents. In addition, there is no consensus about the status of that online publication about being a WP:RS


 * In summary, it seems that there is only one non-trivial/independent of the site itself description of the site content (Geaves), which does not convey notability as per the guideline that requires "multiple non-trivial published works". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment – Good Weekend is not a "self-reference" in the sense that the source (Good Weekend) is independent of the site itself. Such magazine and its reporters are free to interview who they want, if they publish the result of such interview that adds to the notability of their interviewee (and the topic they're interviewing him/her about). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is related to the site itself: The journalist was a member of the group, as per evidence presented elsewhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The site is not a group, so "the journalist was a member of the group" makes no sense.
 * Just to add to Francis's comment, the journalist has contributed to the site, but so have over 300 other people. There is no 'group' despite Jossi's and other Rawat followers' repeated claims that there is. --John Brauns (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Soul Rush (book) was published by someone who was a member of the "group" of followers of Prem Rawat. Whether or not she was a member of that group does not make a difference for the fact that that book contributed to the notability of Rawat. Similar for the journalist, whether or not he was related to a website is irrelevant for the notability added to that website resulting from the publication by a third-party publisher. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment – Jossi's COI regarding a competitor website should, indeed, duly be considered imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why I posted my disclosure, with the hope that arguments are cosidered on their merits by editors not involved in this dispute, such as you who create this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please retract your Good Weekend argument, you know it is unjustified. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see the need to retract a comment, and I will not make any further comments so that the AfD discussion can proceed without my involvement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * Re. "I will not make any further comments so that the AfD discussion can proceed without my involvement": tx.
 * It is however clear you wanted to influence the outcome of this debate with arguments without merit. The assessment by uninvolved editors should keep that in mind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They should also please keep in mind Jossi's disruptive editing of Ex-premie.org, see example below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable. Each of the "sources" given fail to establish notability as they merely mention "ex-premie.org" and do not focus on it nor feature it.  Most of the article is original research, as the sources do not support what is said in the article (i.e., founder, members, etc.). Windy Wanderer (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Was this your third edit ever to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=202372876 ?
 * Re. "as the sources do not support what is said in the article":
 * "founder": in fact: founders: confirmed by the sources (Good Weekend, the history page at the ex-premie.org website) – please explain your problem, I see none.
 * "members": the only occurrence of the word "member" is in a direct quote from a source (The Guardian). Note Jossi's disruptive editing here: (it confuses while it doesn't explicit that the quote refers to members recovering from the Divine Light Mission not any elusive members of a "website"); then here he deletes the other instance of material referenced to The Guardian that does explicit who is intended by "members" by the author of that article: . I restored the correct phrasing now:  – in other words Jossi in action at COI editing
 * "etc" – please explicit if you see any other problems. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No vote. Merely a comment, not a vote at all, for me, it would be inappropriate. I merely want to ask the parties here, who are involved in the Prem Rawat mediation case, not to, er, question every editor over their !vote, when they !vote. As you all know, this is a contentious area, and this sort of behaviour will strongly dissuade participation in this AFD. That said, I'd encourage editors to participate in this debate, but I know the chances are slim given the contentiousness of this area of editing. Steve Crossin   (contact)  22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have given more attention to the merits of the arguments: "Most of the article is original research" is plain bogus and without merit – and insofar the argument had merit it was caused by Jossi's disruptive editing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Windy Wanderer was involved in the Prem Rawat arbitration case, that's what I think should've been made explicit, as I did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 *  No vote  As the current webmaster of the site I do not think it will be appropriate for me to vote. And just to put other editors' minds at rest I will not lose any sleep whichever way the vote goes! :-)  --John Brauns (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I was a source for the John MacGregor article in Good Weekend(which I never retracted, btw).  Therefore, I'll recuse myself from voting here.  There is also content on EPO under my (real) name.  I'll echo what John said: I also won't lose any sleep over which way this vote goes.  Also want to add that there is no "Ex-premie group."  There are people who have discussions on an internet forum and it is a sort of online community, but isn't a group that is part of Ex-premie.org, which is a website, not a group of people.  The "group" idea is something that premies (adherents) of Prem Rawat made up and perpetuated through repetition of the same.  Thanks!  Sylviecyn (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with - there does seem to be enough discussion in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to satisfy WP:WEB. With some work on formatting and syntax it is possible this article could become a quality piece.  Cirt (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A few minor mentions doesn't make it notable.Momento (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither the group, whether or not it exists, nor the website seems to be notable enough for inclusion. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apart from the article by Ron Geaves, none of the other articles can be attributed to reliable sources. For example, the author of the article in The Good Weekend subsequently withdrew his claims, apologised to many people for his allegations, asked the webmaster of the ex-premie.org site to remove his authored material (a request that was denied) and was proven to have been an unreliable witness in a court of law in Australia. It cannot be claimed that the article can be attributed to reliable sources.


 * The site does not meet the notability guidelines. The mentions made in various other articles hardly rates the site as notable, and the sources are not independent of the subject. If a couple of mentions in a few newspapers confers notability, Wikipedia would be swamped by spurious and irrelevant material. Apart from the Geaves article, nothing on the site is independent of the site itself.


 * It seems strange that Wikipedia should become a site that indexes websites. If there was a phenomenon that could be discussed, as generally occurs in encyclopedia entries, then it might be included. But acting as an index for a website? Hardly a legitimate activity for Wikepedia. Armeisen (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This site seems to be for the promotion of personal POVs Terry MacKinnell (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn "redirect" option, see above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per primary author, or alternatively re-direct as per Wikipedia:WEB#Criteria note 2 ^ Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re. "...may be redirected..." – I'd propose Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations as a target page candidate in that case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, a multitude of sources have been provided that demonstrate external attention to the subject. Everyking (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable with few sources. This organization may become notable in the future, but until such a time, should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Windy Wanderer. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Discussed in a surprising number of reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:31, 24 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.