Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Brahma Kumaris and 2012


 * 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 Fairly obvious unencyclopedic essay that is essentially unsourced by secondary sources. That said, AfDs are not to place to challenge editor's motives regardless of their position on the article. There are other venues for that, so please take those types of discussions there. Mike Cline (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Global Brahma Kumaris and 2012

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Speedied as A7, but does not really fit; since the speedy was contested, there's no point in proding, so I take this totally unencyclopedic essay here.  DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty clear delete; speedy, if possible. Written in first person, citing what I received through my link to God as a source--wow, yeah, this isn't going to work here.  To make things worse, it's a spamvertisement for some Youtube videos.  Heather (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I'm amending the article to get it altered into something that is fit for an encyclopedia. I have done my Masters degree and have done a dissertation for a PhD which has been approved by a university. So I can understand what you guys are trying to say.Brahma Kumari Pari (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. At present, the article has several issues, and these are noted above. It is possible that the topic would better be served with an article elsewhere on the internet; until the topic has more coverage in independent, reliable sources (as defined by policy), it is unlikely that an article would survive here. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Do Not Delete. If the Brahma Kumaris and other similar groups are allowed to have their own article at Wikipedia, then something must also be here on the Global Brahma Kumaris. The Brahma Kumaris have many centers and members world wide. They have become very influential and many people know of them and their activities. There are many who do not like their family members joining the Brahma Kumaris because of all the things going on in the Brahma Kumaris. It has become huge and thus a lot of injustice etc takes place there. Thus, many have also left the Brahma Kumaris but are continuing to practice the BK knowledge while adopting to the ways of the world and this is what the Global Brahma Kumaris are all about. There are so many of such people world-wide and so the article will be capable of providing information about what's happening in the world in a informative and evaluative manner. What the Global Brahma Kumaris are involved with, is not something that many people world-wide are not aware of. Thus, people will want to know of what knowledgeable people are saying relating to this. One would be able to get to know of the pros and cons here. Further, the article has already got altered pretty quickly. The article does not sound like as if it was written in first person anymore. The article provokes the mind of thinkers relating to the scriptures. This is a encyclopedia-worthy trait, apart from the fact, that facts are given relating to what is happening in the world. The authour is intelligent will be capable of providing very evaluative information for the public. Though I am not as free as her, where time is concerned, (because I have a job) I will also amend the article from time to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LingKri (talk • contribs) 02:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) LingKri (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * — LingKri (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. The article and it's source appear to be published by the Brahma Kumari Pari and the links at the bottom of the article are to Youtube videos of herself. Also the comments and edits of LingKri, a new single-purpose account, appear to be some kind of stawman trolling in that it appears to be enthusiastic about the article and the editor but at the same time condemning the beliefs with words like "doomsday cult" and some anti-BK propaganda thrown in. The article itself is somewhat left-field of any mainstream beliefs that could be attributed to the Brahma Kumaris. Bksimonb (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Do Not Delete. The Brahma Kumaris trains their members, who they use for service, to topple over anyone who does not accept their control and Bksimonb is just acting based on that training. LingKri is a member of the Global Brahma Kumaris Forum and Bksimond has just blindly made statements about LingKri in an attempt to topple over all his efforts. This is what the Brahma Kumaris do to all those who do not obey them. Bksimonb is attacking this article because BKs are trained to do such things to people who do not follow their guidance and instructions. Thus, Bksimonb's comment cannot be taken as a fair comment. It is biased because he is acting to uplift the image of the Brahma Kumaris. There was a comment made in the ex-BK forum that the BKs are constantly erasing the comments which they make in the articles on the Brahma Kumaris in Wikipedia. The Brahma Kumaris are not allowing fair comments in the articles about them. Bksimonb is also opposing this article because it is contrary to the good image of the Brahma Kumaris. Bksimond is also probably worried that the ex-BKs might spoil the Brahma Kumaris' image through revealing the truth about the Brahma Kumaris through this article. The Brahma Kumaris is a Doomsday cult but they are trying their best to cover it up so as to look like angels. This is not a forum but I had to say something because of what Bksimonb said. This article should be allowed to stay because it will allow fair comments to be made without any fear of being penalised by the Brahma Kumaris and because the contents of the articles are good.Karentansu (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * — Karentansu (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong delete. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable," but there are no independent reliable sources presented in this article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The basic knowledge relied upon and developed by the Global Brahma Kumaris is from the basic knowledge of the Brahma Kumaris. However, the members of the Brahma Kumaris are trained to make sure that everything is within their control and they will do anything to uplift their image or to maintain a good image. A friend of mine who is a lawyer (called Diwanji) and who had acted for some of the legal matters of the Brahma Kumaris told me of a case which he had handled for the Brahma Kumaris. Karuna Bhai, one of the seniors of the Brahma Kumaris at Shantivan (in India), knows him and Diwanji told me that it was Karuna Bhai who had requested him to act on behalf of the Brahma Kumaris, for the case where 2 BKs burnt another to death. It involved 3 centerwasis who were staying together in a BK center in North India. Centerwasis are those who live in the center and take care of the center and they observe celibacy (no sex). Two women and one man stayed in this center. The man and one of the woman began to sleep together and have sex. When the 3rd centerwasi got to know of this, the 2 centerwasis who were having an affair killed her by burning her. So the Brahma Kumaris asked my friend to help them to close the matter and to keep it unknown to the public, by paying off all relevant people including the police. Since the police were paid off, the police did not proceed with the matter and they closed the case. Having been in the Brahma Kumaris, I know that there is a lot of room for things like this to happen in the Brahma Kumaris and so I was not surprised when I heard it. But I have not checked it out to see if there is any truth in it. But if you take a look at the contents of the ex-BK Forum at, you will find a lot of stuff there which the Brahma Kumaris are trying to conceal. There is also another ex-BK Forum at. The Brahma Kumaris are trying to make it seem like as if they are not a Doomsday cult and so they will deny that they are a source for some of the things said in this article. For some of the things which the BKs agree to, e.g. that there is a soul in each human body etc, I will try to link it up to some reliable source which may be a BK source or maybe from elsewhere. But where the practice of the BK teaching and Hinduism is concerned, I have been practicing the 2 for many years. I was born a Hindu and I have been practising BK knowledge since 1994. So I am a reliable source where experience and practice is concerned, in regards to these. So I understand the topic which I am writing on. But I will try my best to quote reliable sources like the Mahabharata and other scriptures, etc since sources have to be quoted in the wikipedia articles. The interpretation that the Pandavas are the fingers and that Draupadi is the palm is supposed to be based on a Hindu story. I will try to locate it. But in the Mahabharata itself, Krishna tells the Pandavas that they are not five but one. It is also said in the Mahabharata that when there is unity between the 5 fingers, they act as one hand or fist and the fist represents power. In the Mahabharata itself is was said that the sharing of Draupadi has to be understood. The Mahabharata is by itself the source that the each Pandava is endowed or blessed with a speciality. Since the Mahabharata, by itself, is a source for some of the things said in the article, the Mahabharata itself is a reliable source for these. A lot of other Hindu scriptures are also sources where the Hindu gods and goddesses are concerned. There are other reliable sources but I will have to find the reliable sources to quote. However, I am not too sure as to how to make a reference to an external link as a footnote and to link the contents in the body (of the article) to that footnote with a link. I am trying to learn how to do it. Further, it will take some time for me to properly link the article up to various sources and other wikipedia articles. I could cite BK books for some sources, though I am not sure if BK books are considered as reliable sources, especially since they are hiding a lot of their knowledge from the public to give themselves a good image. The Global Brahma Kumaris do not hide anything in respect of the spiritual knowledge used by the BK like how the BKs hide. So what one hears from the Global Brahma Kumaris may be closer to the Truth where BK knowledge is concerned than what the BKs present to the public. But off course, the Global Brahma Kumaris members accept even other teachings from other sources which the Brahma Kumaris do not accept and so what we use may not be the same as that which is accepted and used by the Brahma Kumaris. By the way, Wikipedia also has a “Ignore all rules” policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR)Ignore all rules. I especially liked this point from the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means) What "Ignore all rules" means: “Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you.” One need to have been in the Brahma Kumaris for many years to understand the injustice that can be done by the Brahma Kumaris to their members and through their extremist teachings. The BK knowledge is also interpretated by the seniors in such a way that it is in favour of the seniors and it helps to keep them in power and in control. The BKs are also indoctrinated with certain knowledge which can make it very difficult for members to live comfortably in the world, outside the Brahma Kumaris. Thus, there are many members, who have left the Brahma Kumaris, who are trying to help these people. The Global Brahma Kumaris is also one of those. It would be most considerate to the general public to allow the ex-BK members to speak as well, so that people do not just get the BK view point from the Brahma Kumaris, which is what is in the articles on the Brahma Kumaris. One can understand what I am saying by reading the things posted by ex-BKs in the ex-BK Forums. Many of those ex-BK Forum members had been members of the Brahma Kumaris for many years before they left. So they know of what is happening in the Brahma Kumaris. I do not mind if all the contents in my article gets deleted as being inappropriate and something else gets put in it's place. Since the Brahma Kumaris is a doomsday cult, one can't also separate the Global Brahma Kumaris from “world destruction” or doomsday. 2012 is an appropriate representation for doomsday.Brahma Kumari Pari (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Pari. I have nothing against you personally and this isn't some big cover-up going on. Wikipedia simply isn't the place to promote your own views or your own website. I am sure you would make a good editor here but I don't think the editor of bkinfo would make a good role-model for you because he is banned. We have a consensus here that the article should be deleted and "ignoring all the rules" is not going change that. Best Bksimonb (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a right to accept whoever I wish as my role model. If the editor of bkinfo has misconducted himself and been banned, that is his business. I will not take that as a reason for me to terminate my relationship with him as ex-BKs. Actually, I am not really an ex-BK. Frankly speaking, I do not mind it if this article gets deleted. But why did you make the statement, "We have a consensus here that the article should be deleted". Have you and the others who have requested for the article to be deleted in this page, got together and decided it. If there is some consensus between you and them, then they must be BKs or supportive of BKs. There are many BKs who disguise like as if they are not BKs and try to get BK service done in an incognito manner. I had also got involved with that kind of incognito BK service on the advise of the President of the Brahma Kumaris here in Malaysia. He and the other BKs would make statements like, "Go there dressed like a non-BK, and do service in an incoginito way". The reason why I brought this up now is that if all the others who have requested for "delete" have some consensus with you, then, the credibility of Wikipedia might be questioned. If this article gets deleted before I get an explanation for this question, then, it speaks a lot for itself. Anyway, I am not anti-BK. So if you want this article deleted, I can flow along with that. The Global BK can continue, with or without the wikipedia.Brahma Kumari Pari (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Pari. Of course you have a right to choose your role model but if you carry on accusing me and the other editors here of misconduct or being part of some big BK conspiracy, like the person I mentioned always did, and threaten to ignore all the rules like a bull in a china shop, then, on Wikipedia at least, you might not last too long. I don't even know the other editors that have commented here except for Karentansu and LingKri who are, most likely, aliases (sockpuppets) of the bkinfo admin who is trolling here. The reason we have a consensus regarding this article is because Wikipedia has clear policies and guidelines about what qualifies as an article here and those policies have existed long before you created your article.


 * You'll notice that there are hyperlinks in our replies, please read-up on where they are pointing to better understand what policies we are referring to.


 * I am quite happy for Global BK to continue. I had a look at the site and found it quite interesting. To have an article about it in Wikipedia it would need to have been documented by reliable sources and be notable. It's not that Global BK should be kept out at all costs, it's just that Wikipedia aims to keep a sense of proportion regarding the significance of an organisation in the world. If you pepper a number of articles with stuff about the Global BK group then it may give the reader the impression that it is somehow as well known and notable as the BKWSU itself, or that it actually IS the BKWSU. This is not in proportion to reality. More established offshoots from the BKIVV such as the AIVV have their own article because there are now some reliable sources that mention them.


 * Please don't think I am in any way against you. I appreciate what you are doing with your own website and admire your courage to participate positively in the face of hostility on the forums.


 * Best wishes, Bksimonb (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Pari's questions. It is BKsimonb who is commenting on everthing said by Pari in a negative light. Bksimonb seems to have overlooked the fact that not everyone in this page is proposing “delete”. There are those who have proposed “Do not delete” and they have given very good reasons for proposing non-removal. If the management of Wikipedia deletes the Global Brahma Kumaris article and allows all the articles of the Brahma Kumaris to remain, then they are not being fair. The Brahma Kumaris are also only here for advertising their organization and trying to influence others through their articles here in Wikipedia. When there is a battle for status in the Brahma Kumaris, those in authority in the Brahma Kumaris or those who have money to buy the favours of the Brahma Kumaris remain in the Brahma Kumaris and those who left had become members of the Global Brahma Kumaris. The GBKs have been unfairly treated in the Brahma Kumaris, which is why they are in the Global Brahma Kumaris. If the management of Wikipedia deletes the article of the GBKs and allows the BK articles to remain in wikipedia, they are being as unfair to the GBKs as the BKs had been. If this article of the GBKs gets deleted, then the BK articles should also be removed from Wikipedia. There is nothing so great about the Brahma Kumaris that information needs to be given about them in an encyclopedia. The GBKs are greater than the BKs because we moved off from the Brahma Kumaris to allow the BKs to continue having status there. It is not that we wanted any status in the Brahma Kumaris but the BKs saw us as a threat to their status there. If the BKs are considered as having a good source for their links in the Wikipedia articles, then the GBKs also have a good source because the “Source” is the same for the BKs and the GBKs. The murlis, spiritual knowledge and all other sources created by the Brahma Kumaris is for all effort makers of the Confluence Age and the BKs have no right to claim complete rights and authority over all that. If the Brahma Kumaris are going to claim complete rights over those sources, then we can settle this matter in court. The BKs who are running the Brahma Kumaris have snatched the Brahma Kumaris away from those who are rightfully entitled to it. The BKs snatched it away from them because those BKs wanted status through the Brahma Kumaris. Those BKs wanted to act like great lords in and through the Brahma Kumaris. And that is what BKSimonb's behaviour is like, here. The Brahma Kumaris cannot claim that the “Source” is only theirs. That “Source” may not be theirs anymore considering the way that the Brahma Kumaris are behaving. Since the GBKs have made sacrifices to allow the BKs to continue enjoying their status in the Brahma Kumaris, it is the GBKs who are worthy to be mentioned in an encyclopedia and not the BKs. Anyway, I left the Brahma Kumaris because I did not want to get involved with any quarrels with the BKs and I am also not interested in getting involved with quarrels with the BKs here. I just wanted to say that if the GBK article is deleted, then the BK articles should also be deleted. They have to be deleted for the same reasons why the GBK article is being deleted. The BKs are only trying to promote themselves and their web-sites through the wikipedia articles.Gbkindran (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pari, FYI, the above post is another trolling sockpuppet of User:Lucyintheskywithdada, the BKinfo admin, and has been reported along with the others. Bksimonb (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bksimonb, why are you accusing the BKinfo admin for the things that the GBKs said. Lingkri, Karentansu and GBKindran are all from the Global BK Forum. Anyway, I accept all the explanations which you have given.

We all know that the BK murlis state that at the end, the Brahma Kumaris will be playing an administrative role. Editing in the Wikipedia and managing the articles that one has posted is administrative in nature. That is what the Brahma Kumaris would be doing and not the Global BKs. To play this administrative role, the Brahma Kumaris need their sources as a backing. This may be why those who remained in the Brahma Kumaris had remained there, and those of us who left, had left. The GBKs do not have an administrative role to play and this may be why the sources are in the hands of the Brahma Kumaris and not in the hands of the GBKs. Thus, it is my opinion that the GBKs should allow the Brahma Kumaris to play their administrative role with their sources. The GBKs should move off from this page with just the "Source". There is no more need for GBKs to come to this page to participate. We had left the Brahma Kumaris to remain peaceful and so we should "leave" this page and this article, in peace. Om Shanti (which means "I am a peaceful soul").Brahma Kumari Pari (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Pari, I can accept that Lingkri, Karentansu and GBKindran are not Lucyintheskywithdada and will withdraw the sockpuppet report as they don't have the track record of disruption that Lucy has and I should therefore assume that if they continue editing here they will soon learn to work constructively. Some of the comments, however, do seem to be very close to Lucy's style such as making unhelpful accusations regarding my status as a BK, presence on Wikipedia and supposed agenda of information control. I would ask you and your friends to refrain from such behaviour as it is not a constructive way of working. Also, it is not advisable to recruit friends to appear on Wikipedia to champion your cause, this is called meat-puppetry. I can understand that you may not have been aware of this before, though.
 * Peace Bksimonb (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what did you mean by "they don't have the track record of disruption that Lucy has"? I agree that I didn't know a lot of things about the rules of Wikipedia. I have to agree that I had directed ex-BKs and PBKs here but as far as I know, they did not contribute or say anything. I had also not requested them to say or contribute. My posts in their forum is still there and you can check it out if you want. I had not made any posts in the Global BK Forum because I think there are some BKs there. I am not sure. So I didn't want to upset them with the conversation that was taking place between you and me. Anyway whether, others make any posts here or not is not of my concern. If the conversation has something to do with me or the Global BK Forum, then I will voice my opinion, as I have that right. Actually, you and I did not really know each other and so we were very cautious with each other. But I think you are getting upset a little too fast, Bksimonb. Maybe it is because you have been subjected to "attacks" for too long a period.Brahma Kumari Pari (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. Delete, and Speedy delete if possible.  The issue here is this particular article, as it stands.  It's not an encyclopaedia entry, it's a personal essay, full of WP:OR, and would have to be entirely rewritten to be suitable here.  If someone wants to write a factual article from scratch, describing this bunch of believers and their beliefs in neutral terms complete with independent references, that would be fine (although judging from the OP's username there's a huge WP:COI and they should be strongly discouraged from creating articles of this type).   By the way, Wikipedia is not a venue for squabbles between rival factions, and various contributors to this discussion would do well to read WP:OTHERSTUFF.   Ka renjc 15:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an unencyclopedic hodgepodge of original research and unverifiable statements.  Additionally: I read the whole thing and it actually reads like the kind of lunacy you read on Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap or Time Cube.  At times I was convinced it's all a very intricate hoax.  (While "this sounds completely insane" isn't a reason to delete, "this is so badly sourced that it's impossible to tell it from a hoax" rather is.)   Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find the "Delete" tag anywhere. I would appreciate it if  DGG could help me to delete this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brahma Kumari Pari (talk • contribs) 04:02, 23 April 2010 (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.