Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shangra-la Mission


 * 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. ¨consensus from established editors is clear Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Shangra-la Mission

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a content fork of The Summit Lighthouse. There are no news articles about this organization available in Google News or other sources. The article appears to be a promotional piece for the associated website (recently back online, a personal website which rambles on about a couple's relationship breakup mixed in with new-age spiritual un-sourced waffle). Consequently in addition to being a content fork, it fails to meet WP:ORG requirements and should be deleted. The original text (some of which is now removed) made several unsourced assertions about living people failing the requirements of WP:BLP. This is likely to be a contentious deletion due to the potential claimed religious or spiritual context, however standard Wikipedia policies apply. Ash (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I ran across this because it had been listed in List of Christian denominations and User:Ash thought it didn't belong there. I agreed to that, since it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in that list (it lacks any self-identification of Christian as far as I can tell).  Then I ran across the afd and agree.  Other than the website, there isn't any indication of its existence.  The books are all in the category of self-published books, which are not sufficient as independent sources. Tb (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I encountered this article for the first time this afternoon and was appalled by its blatant status as advertisement for a nonnotable religious group.  I had no idea as to its history.  Nothing notable here, nothing referenced in a third party source, nothing redeemable. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for deleting the previous post. It said to delete the template when closing.
 * Allow I will re-iterate my stand that the content for Shangra-La Mission is not connected with Summit Lighthouse at all. The poster "Ash" should be better informed before making such statements.
 * Shangra-La Mission is a God-based mission to teach us how to Be that which we were created to be.  IAMBeing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMBeing (talk • contribs) 02:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * — IAMBeing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * (reply) It would be useful if you could point to some verifiable sources. I was going by previous badly sourced (as in relying on self published sources) statements on pages such as The Summit Lighthouse. Presumably for similar reasons this would mean that links to the Theosophical Society and The Saint Germain Foundation should be removed.—Ash (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas (he says, tongue in cheek) being a God-based mission is not relevant to AfD criteria. Tb (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't it hilarious that the modern scribes and pharisees are now working to set rules on the net, they have certainly kept on top with the technology, however they are still in the mindset that things that step outside of their set up rules and regulations on what goes where in what file on which cabinet.


 * Why do they want a group that is recognized by the government of the United States as a registered charity to be taken out of their entries? What is so threatening about us that makes them think we have no right to Be in this wonderful source of information. I ask you editors of Wikipedia to consider why is it that since we cannot be put in a specific category then we are not worth having? Isn't that the principle of wikipedia, to share the information of the few to the world? We deserve to have our entry with the history of our organization, because from that history we have learned and continue to grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ume Arai (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * — Ume Arai (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The criteria are those of WP:N, and have nothing to do with being "recognized" by the US as a "registered charity". You appear to have misunderstood the purposes of wikipedia, which are not about the "few" and "the world" but rather, building an encyclopedia. Tb (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The founder of Shangra La Mission has several books published. One of them is coming out on Amazon and can be previewed there. It's at http://www.amazon.com/Way-Know-That-Am-You/dp/0963256408/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258127542&sr=8-1#noop. You will see that it is not a part of the Summit group but rather a set of teachings from the Ascended Masters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMBeing (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Off-topic comments by User:Ume Arai removed, see diff. Please note the guidance of NOTFORUM. An AFD discussion is not a soapbox to air general opinions and observations, comments of this type will be removed following the guidance of WP:Prune. You may find SPA, COI and SOCK helpful before making further edits where you may have potential conflict of interest.—Ash (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated Ume Arai's comment. It is not acceptable for a deletion nominator to remove comments from an AfD discussion. I'm sure (well, let's say I hope) that the closing admin will be able to determine which arguments are in accordance with policy and guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to that part of WP:DEL that states that the normal interpretation of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKNO do not apply here as I have not found any such guidance myself? In the meantime I'll assume you are correct - so could someone else please remove or strike out some of these off-topic comments that obviously violate the standard guidelines for deletion discussions as Phil Bridger objects to the nominator taking any such action.—Ash (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the comment is likely WP:NOTFORUM and maybe WP:TALKNO problematic, but that isn't the question. The correct response there is to explain to the editor that they are in violation of those policies, not to simply delete their comments.  In this case, even that seems pointless.  I'm willing to assume good faith, and read the comment in that light: the editor is trying to explain why he thinks the page should be kept, which (in his view, not understanding policy here correctly) he thinks is connected to the question of the truth of his ideas and the motives of those of us who favor deletion.  In that context, the gentler course would be to let him have his rant, which I expect reduces the likelihood of future misbehavior in this case.  Since this is not a vote, it's not necessary to exclude such things as if the closing admin won't be able to figure out what's up. Tb (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether the person has had books published, but whether the organization meets the criteria for notability. Since the books are self-published by the organization's founder, they are not suitable as sources. Tb (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I cannot find evidence that this organization meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion.  I could only find one independent source mentioning it, and that mention was very brief and not at all useful to demonstrating notability.  Those members of the group who are trying to save the article should bear in mind that books by members of the mission are not at all useful for demonstrating notability; what's required are books and articles about the mission in reliable, independent sources, which I wasn't able to find with my own search. In addition, the article is written in a way so counter-encyclopedic that a full rewrite would be required- and there are no sources that anyone outside the group can use to supply information for such a rewrite. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow I have done some research and found the mission was founded on January 10, 2003 in New York. Here is the link.
 * New York Incorporation
 * Also, when I go to their website, it looks like they are revising it and that is why it was not showing accessible links before to content, when accessing. the shangra-la mission That data says it is being recreated, and already has a new banner.
 * The Shangra-la Mission also comes up in the google search as the first listing.
 * According to back files on Wikepedia, there are also two other major Shangra-la websites one Shangra-la Russia and the Shangra-la Mission Colombia.
 * Therefore, this mission is not limited to just a few members, but is a worldwide membership. In looking up google cache files, I can also find a cached file of some listings of http://web.archive.org/web/20080611033118/shangrala.org/F_LIVINGWORD/APastConclaves.html conferences put on around the world.
 * According to Alpheus, an esoteric archive of Ascended Master activities, he has listed the organization there.
 * http://www.alpheus.org/html/contentindices/ascended_masters_index.html
 * Taborthree (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * — Taborthree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please note that such an organization may exist is not the basis for nomination. The nomination refers to the requirements of WP:ORG which requires notability to be established using third party sources. The links you have provided to date do not address that requirement.—Ash (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words: You get one vote, with one account. So far, you seem to have used two accounts to vote at least five times.  -19:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to sound like I'm taking the side of a sockpuppet, cuz I'm not. But note that it's not a vote at all, and language about voting tends to encourage sockpuppetry in the future. Tb (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow Here is a publication from The Netherlands that talks about information from the Shangra-La Mission: http://www.inmarkt.nl/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=314  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMBeing (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow Although tangentially, it is also mentioned as an Ascended Master Organization here: http://covenantmindedministries.com/new_age_movement_continued  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMBeing (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * — IAMBeing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please refer to WP:BCD, you are not following the normal guidelines by stating your position multiple times.—Ash (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The books listed under "further reading" in the article were all published before this mission is claimed to have been established, so are obviously irrelevant to notability, and the only one of the external links that mentions the subject is its own web site. None of the other sources proposed above does any more than confirm that the founder of this mission has created a web site and self-published a book. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow: the purpose of this page is to provide information as a summary of the beliefs of a particular spiritual organisation. It does not argue the truth or otherwise of a particular opinion on those beliefs, leaving the reader to decide should they so wish.  It is therefore, as I would understand it, neutral.  The main sources of information for this will of course be the websites and books published by the organisation, as they provide details on those beliefs.  Information mentioned above is available to verify that there are members world-wide and it is therefore an actual organisation and not a made-up entry.  There must of course be rules on Wikipedia to keep some order and prevent malicious use to ensure that it remains a useful source of information.  But these rules must be applied as appropriate to the situation, depending on the type of entry and its purpose.  Wikipedia is great precisely because of the vast array of information available, and sticking so rigidly to the rules no matter the circumstances will limit the sharing of information, which is of course its purpose.  Please use some discernment in applying the rules.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeIAM (talk • contribs) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * — FreeIAM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! I make that 4 new accounts so far created in the last 24 hours which have the single purpose of contributing to this AfD and article. Please be aware of the guidance of WP:SOCK.—Ash (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome. You appear to be suggesting the use of multiple accounts by one individual.  Please feel free to investigate that as it is not the case.  This also suggests that you are dismissing our points due to being new users.  As wikipedia is a resource designed to be edited by anyone, this does rather seem to go against the spirit of it and sound very elitist.  I left my comments because the comments by yourself and others on this page may follow the rules to the letter but don't actually make any sense if you think about what people use the site for, and I would hope for reconsideration.FreeIAM (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has policies. Everyone is invited to edit, but it is required that edits conform to Wikipedia policy.  Attacking the policies as "elitist" is not really helpful here.  Tb (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Quite a few editors above arguing "Keep" in various forms have been blocked as sockpuppets by admins. Tb (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2009 (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.