Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rama computer cult


 * 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 No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rama computer cult

 * — (View AfD)

Article appears to be unverified original research and the subject appears to be non-notable. -999 (Talk) 20:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my nom. -999 (Talk) 20:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is a bit silly compared to the Frederick Lenz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lenz  entry). Is anything covered in this article that is not covered there? Also it has many quotations with no supporting citations and the section on “Organisation & finance” mentions specifics on three kinds of students… I don’t see any evidence to support that the cult functioned in that way. Further more isn’t Organisation spelt Organization. Whomever created the original entry was probably not all that serious about documenting facts. So why do we not delete this article?


 * Delete per nom, no sources given, no notability established. --Pjacobi 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, it looks like the authors of this article have quoted material from interesting locations. Let's give them time to provide citations for their material, and potentially expand the article.  Smeelgova 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Keep with rename and improvement. I agree that the article is underperforming, but it has encyclopedic utility, as well as the usual insider opponents who may try to suppress the reference to their membership as a cult. • The POV title could renamed to Rae Chorze-Fwaz / Rama, and Rama computer cult should become a redirect. • There aren't enough references, but it's not like they aren't available to rebut the OR charge — the Frederick Lenz article has 81. • The British spelling of "Organisation" is to be kept as found per Wikiguide. • For notability, {"Frederick Lenz"} has 23,400 Google hits; {"Frederick Lenz" cult} has 2,050; and is cult-listed by Rick Ross, Steven Hassan, and others. Wired 2.01, a reliable source used only at List of groups referred to as cults, reports an allegation of "massive frauds" committed against the computer business industry (see alleged fraud details here) The alleged fraudsters were notable enough that Wikipedia disambiguates their nickname The California Raisins (disambiguation). As a matter of public policy, credible warnings of repeatable fraud are generally assumed notable so the warnings will be propagated. • The Frederick Lenz article is large at 63 Kb and focuses on the life of Lenz and his teachings. A second article to focus on the the problems alleged to be caused by his students and his organization(s) referred to as cult(s), is entirely reasonable and could reduce the size of the Lenz article. The Wired businss fraud charges seem incompletely or not at all covered in the article#section Frederick Lenz#Adversity with cult watchdog groups, deprogrammers and former students. Much of this section appears to be pro-Lenz and anti-anti-cult to the point of a POV endorsement of Lenz. Milo 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am definitely in favor of keeping this article.  However, providing references is a bit tricky.  I definitely have a positive view of this group and, although I am opposed because of Wikipedia etiquette to just deleting swaths of an article, I have been trying to make edits that give a more positive slant on the subject matter.  Thus, I am not going to be the one to provide references for the negative stuff although I can provide references for the positive additions I have made.  The original creator of this article seems to have disappeared.  However, I do know that, from a neutral perspective, there are references supporting both the positive and negative claims made here.

I already posted my reasons for wanting the article kept on the talk page, but to reiterate:

As someone with a favorable opinion of this group, I do not want to draw too much attention to the press coverage this group received, which unfortunately was mostly negative. Yet the press coverage--albeit largely negative in nature--surely is indicative of the significance of this group. The group was discussed in articles or television programs in Wired Magazine (2.01, again in 7.09), Psychology Today, Dateline (August 1996 and March 1997), New York magazine, Newsweek, the San Francisco Chronicle, Santa Fe Reporter, Philadelphia Inquirer, Portland Oregonian, Gannett Suburban Newspapers, the LA Weekly, and the Hartford Courant. As noted, the press coverage was mostly negative, although the New York magazine did declare Rama to be one of the 100 smartest New Yorkers.

With this level of local and national coverage, surely it must be agreed, even if there is controversy as to the accuracy of that coverage, that the subject is significant.

As far as merging it with the article on Frederick Lenz, I would oppose that, firstly because the article on Frederick Lenz is already long enough, but also because a group is not the same as its leader. What Frederick Lenz advised the group to do through his teachings, and what the group actually did, sometimes were two completely different matters and deserve separate articles. --Dash77 02:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Change or Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.99.10.4 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I see folks have some strong feelings for keeping the article. The big issue is that the name of the article is slanted. If we could change the name to something more neutral then I would be happy to help create a well rounded article.

The best name for the article would be: “Students of Rama – Dr. Frederick Lenz” The reason I would NOT go with “Rae Chorze-Fwaz” is because Students of Lenz seldom refereed to themselves as “Rae Chorze-Fwaz”. Mostly “Rae Chorze-Fwaz” was known as the fictional secrete society in Lenz’s book about snow boarding, Rae Chorze-Fwaz was only used to refer to his Student’s on rarer occasions… hence a redirect to this article is appropriate. I also think the California Raisins might be another good choice for a rename of this article. But “Rama Computer Cult” is really not going to do it because this article should be about more than the group’s proclivity for computers. What about the group’s history prior to the computer boom. Lenz’ had many followers prior to his endorsement of computer related jobs. Perhaps it was because of his endorsement of computers (and career success) that his more flakey students became turncoats and started creating negative press… people fear change.

Anyway I suggest  this article be changed to one of the following:

“Students of Rama – Dr. Frederick Lenz” “California Raisins” or it just be removed
 * 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.