Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Study Society


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Study Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I cannot find reliable 3rd party coverage of this organisation which fails WP:NCORP. Its author is an WP:SPA and it reads like a WP:ADVERT, with apparent WP:COI issues which are unconvincingly denied. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I see no credible indication of a COI, but that shouldn't make a difference in a deletion discussion anyway, since the article's inclusion is based on the merits of the subject, not who created the article. --  At am a  頭 20:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The present article is a self-sourced advert. If kept, it needs to be rewritten and sourced to third party views that are independent of its own promoters:, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Second note: I've listed this at Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 5 which is a requirement for AfDs. --  At am a  頭 21:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. --  At am a  頭  21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --  At am a  頭  21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - As the main contributor to this page, who collected and published the material, I will try to make the case for keeping the page.

Before I start I would like to point out that the page has been happily on the Wikipedia system for two years until today, when one person who appears to be running a campaign based on his personal beliefs, started an attack on multiple fronts culminating in this attempt to delete it. One edit he made (at 17:21) sums up his agenda: He changed "One of the Society’s aims is to seek contact and dialogue with like-minded individuals, teachers and organisations from the fields of science, philosophy, religion and the arts." to "One of the Society’s aims is to seek contact and dialogue with like-minded individuals, teachers and organisations from the fields of pseudoscience, philosophy, religion and the arts." Note that several of the people listed are in fact "real" scientists with reputable careers and articles in mainstream journals.

First, the organisation is a "School" set up by P.D. Ouspensky and was run after his death by his nominated successor, to continue and further develop his work, for which he gave instructions. The information about what happened to his "school" after he died is interesting and important and has been collected here and should be preserved. The page covers the history from 1951, a few years after Ouspensky died, to the present day.

Second, (and missing from the page at the moment) is that Ouspensky's archive papers, previously unpublished, were contributed to the famous Yale historical collection by the Study Society (I have found a citation for this.)

Third, there is a particular problem with finding the history and citations for this organisation. The reason is that it was, in accordance with Ouspenky's rules, a secretive society - members were not allowed to speak of it, or its work or members. This gradually changed and that meant I was able to learn more - see all the references, especially Lachman's book, Joyce Collin-Smith's book (which is critical of the Study Society), and Paul Mason's biography of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It is likely that its actual effects were greater than its published effects because of the secrecy, but this cannot be supported by citations. This unusual problem should be taken into account when assessing its notability.

Fourth, the organisation was instrumental in arranging Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's appearance in London at the Royal Albert Hall, at a time when meditation was new. This event had a significant impact on culture and society, to the extent that nowadays meditation is commonplace.

Finally, let me address the criticism that this is no more than an advertisement. I am disappointed that some people feel it reads like that. This is my first attempt at a Wikipedia article and I thought I had kept it factual, with every statement backed by citations. I would of course be more than happy to cut out anything that sounds promotional. Although I have a keen interest in Ouspensky's philosophy and legacy I have no interest in promoting this organisation and that was not my intention. --Cotswold Tiger (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, for the time being. The article needs to be reworked, and the point of view is slanted, but I feel that the subject appears to be notable enough to justify giving this article a chance. Keep the article and give the author and others a chance to rework it. Ducknish (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This entry should stay. It portrays an important and interesting part of the history of meditation in the West and of the development of non-dualist philosophy in the last 70 years. It could certainly be expanded and better-referenced and I imagine will be once the decision to keep it is made. The narrow beliefs of one individual should not be a reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldmanbeaver (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. A lot of effort has gone into the article but no amount of dressing will hide the fact that the refs are all primary or trivial - I checked them. The article is promotional and intended to sell. Szzuk (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2014 (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.