Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Past teachings of Prem Rawat


 * 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 of the debate was keep. –  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 09:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Past teachings of Prem Rawat, Current teachings of Prem Rawat
this article has no added value and will have no added value to the set of articles related to Prem Rawat, among others Divine Light Mission, Prem Rawat etc. All reputable sources are used in those articles already and there are very few reputable sources that summarize the past teachings of Prem Rawat. This article is now 95% original research coupled with very selective quotes and off-topic remarks about the Divine Light Mission. I had already asked for references here Talk:Prem_Rawat without result. I do not think that asking for references again will yield something that can be considered as added value to the other articles. Andries 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (amended)


 * Keep all. I agree that it may require some cleanup, but that is no basis for deletion. Like many other articles in Wikipedia, most certainly this article can be improved, and there is no problem in reusing sources cited in other articles. Note that the request for sources maintenance tag was placed today by the nominator. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 17:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I asked you to provide references some time 24 days ago, but you did not give them. If this article survives vote for deletion then I will get rid of all the original research, off topic sentences, selective (mostly retrospective) quotes by Prem Rawat. At this moment, removing all of this will leave not a single sentence in the article. Andries 17:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If the article survives AfD, we will hopefully engage in a collaborative process of editing. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] Adding Current teachings of Prem Rawat to the nomination for essentially the same reasons (and there's probably more similar cruft in the box at the page's bottom, but whatever). Sandstein 17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all as, what, gurucruft? Seriously, it's partially unsourced WP:POVFORKs of Prem Rawat, and part preaching (WP:NOT a soapbox), with all "sources" pointing to what looks like his own site, or sites affiliated with him. Not worth the effort to find out if anything is mergeable to Prem Rawat, which is inordinately long already. Sandstein 17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * These are not POV forks, but article spinoff, as the main article is already too big. See: content forking/spinouts &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 17:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. The references that are on the article seem to refer to speeches by this guru which happen to be stored at the guru's official website. That seems like an ok source to me. The article needs more sources. But this does not seem like a valid reason for deletion. The next charge is that it is gurucruft -- another way of saying that Prem Rawat is not notable enough to justify these large articles. That is possible, but needs to be argued for rather than simply asserted. It is deeply ironic and revealing to see User:Andries, who has made a career out of uploading vast reams of tangientially relevent negative data on gurus &mdash; and who once claimed that the objective of Wikipedia was to store all of the information in the world's libraries &mdash; now attempting to delete and suppress information. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For quotes by Prem Rawat, we have Prem Rawat. This article should contain summaries from reputable sources, not highly selective quotes by Rawat. It can never be neutral if it contains highly selective quotes. Andries 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So fix it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, it cannot be fixed, because there are no reputable source. Andries 19:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll just take your word for it. You've proven to be completely neutral on these matters. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course that there are reputable sources.... 23:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reasonably reputable summaries with some length of Maharaji's earlier teachings that I have been able to find are by Reender Kranenborg in his Dutch language book "Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen/Eastern Faith movements in the West". Other sources mainly describe the beliefs and practices of the Divine Light Mission, not the teachings of Prem Rawat. Andries 11:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If these are POV forks, what is the 43kb article Criticism of Prem Rawat? If there is no end to the amount of relevant negative information, why is there a limit to material that is arguably purely descriptive? In fact, the article under examination contains a section of "criticism"! Given these facts, Wikipedia's coverage of Prem Rawat seems POV, but opposite to the way that the nominator intended. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the description in this article is 95% original research, 3 percent quotes that belong in Wikiquote and 2% off-topic material. Andries 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It may be a POV fork but it's pro-Rawat. Another Ex-Premie 21:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WP does not need this article. nor the other one.  Midgley 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, please lay off of Andries and keep to the subject at hand. Andries has a valid point about the article, which he's researched, and you know nothing about. The article is lacking in substance, and factually incorrect in spots. Btw, based on your user pages you do have quite an ax to grind with him because you have some personal attacks against Andries there. He is always as a gentleman even under pressure, wherever he goes on the internet. Thank you. Another Ex-Premie 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He is always as a gentleman even under pressure, wherever he goes on the internet.
 * Oh...you have no idea how much I needed a good belly laugh this morning. Thank you. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Don't understand why these articles need to be deleted. I am researching this subject for a paper and I found both articles interesting and comprehensive. -- Daniella 03:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Daniella has made only 26 edits in WikipediaAndries 10:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * keep Like all articles in Wikipedia, this one began with a small amount of information that has accumulated. Much of it is claimed to be true by editors, and I am one of those. The record of these early teachings should be kept and verified when those sources are both re-found and documented. For example, for such a topical subject, written documentation might be light on; however, interviews with various people and other written, secondary sources may support what has been written. The point is that, simply because someone said/wrote it does not make it POV. It simply makes it unsourced. Errol V 04:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * keep of course this well researched and highly informative article.--Rainer P. 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * delete This whole section reads as if Prem Rawat himself had dictated it, except the use of language is more logically coherent than Rawat can manage. In itself, that would not be a problem if the content were comprehensive and accurate.  However, the last paragraph in particular reads as something of a whitewash of the facts regarding the 'superdevotional' era of the late seventies and early eighties.  There is ample documented evidence archived at ex-premie.org which tells a very different story to this account, which appears, above all, an attempt to rewrite DLM/EV history and re-assign culpability for decisions and practises that came *always* from the top. When I say 'delete', what I really mean is scrap the thing and start again.  A well-researched and objective entry on 'the past teachings of Prem Rawat' has to be an essential part of the story.  Without it, what story is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigfitzroy (talk • contribs) Note: this user's vote is his only edit in Wikipedia

NOTE: This is not a discussion forum, or USENET. This is a page to vote for an article to be deleted or kept. Moving discussions to discussion page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, Jossi, all the 'discussion' attached to people's votes should also be removed. Be consistent. This page does not belong to you; you are not the gatekeeper of Bree. ∞∞Errol V 02:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Some comments are OK, Errol, but extended discussions should be moved to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Past_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all These articles can be very helpful for any researcher trying to get a perspective on how a guru child's teachings embedded in Indian culture have evolved into Prem Rawat's current work. Having more references and sources will improve the articles but they are already useful.Mariawiki 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: user:Mariawiki has made only three edits in WikipediaAndries 10:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC),
 * Note: See also User Mariawiki on Spanish Wikipedia ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 20:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all. This article is needed so that the Prem Rawat article can become a clear, concise, collection of facts and not be burdened by tit for tat debate over what his teachings are.Momento 03:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all. It is interesting for every student who wants to know this movement. It would be a lack in the wikipedia that a person who is giving conferences all over the world included several important universities in the west wasn´t have any reference in this encyclopedia. It is a social phenomena important to Know for pchycologists and sociologists as well. It is important to know the spiritual influence in western cultura. I do not know moving in wiki, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.231.220 (talk • contribs)


 * "Keep all." This part of the entries on Prem Rawat is more valuable than the main biographical segment, going through in a clear way every area of his teaching and how it has changed or been modified. It begins to give a sense of the gravity of the teaching itself which is overlooked by critics who focus on the life and personality of the teacher.Marvin Khan 12:05, 10 April 2006 (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.