Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sensual Meditation


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sensual Meditation

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant secondary source coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. The vast majority of the article is cited only to primary sources. There is a most inappropriate subsection called "notability" within the article itself, which purports to put forth smatterings of brief mentions from a few sources. See also relevant prior AFDS, including Articles for deletion/Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement, Articles for deletion/Raëlian Embassy for Extraterrestrials, and Articles for deletion/Raëlian Church membership estimates. -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Procedural delete. There should be a PROD category that goes something like "should have been bundled with previous AfDs". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If anyone is interested in what a merged article will look like see User:Kmarinas86/Raëlism.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - While this apparently at best barely-discussed topic could have been included in previous discussions, I think we can reasonably give the nominator the benefit of the doubt in perhaps reviewing the available sources for each article individually. I would also advise that any attempts to make substantial changes to the main Raelism article based on the deletion of these pages be not made until and unless other individuals agree to the proposed changes. The Raelism article is currently at GA, and, however committed certain editors might be to material regarding that movement, the article might, potentially, be placed under GA review if the material is unbalanced in the eyes of others. Also, WP:OWN indicates that no one editor should feel he has the right to make changes to such a good article based on their own opinions. I think it would make most sense to propose changes to that article on the talk page first, and only make them after a clear consensus for such changes is established. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 23 November 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.