| Revision as of 01:11, 20 March 2008 editReneeholle (talk | contribs)3,400 edits add question← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:50, 20 March 2008 edit undoReneeholle (talk | contribs)3,400 edits some backgroundNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ::So, even before I look at the text, could you please (pretty please) provide the '''new material''' and '''secondary sources''' that would justify a deletion review? This will save us all time. ] (]) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | ::So, even before I look at the text, could you please (pretty please) provide the '''new material''' and '''secondary sources''' that would justify a deletion review? This will save us all time. ] (]) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::p.s. As '''background''' for people reviewing this, the exact same primary sources as appear in this French article were researched and discussed ad nauseum on the now-deleted talk pages in English. (If I appear exasperated, this is why and my apologies.) We have had a problem with socks coming on as "new" users (e.g., see ). They bring the same primary sources, ask the same questions, and because the previous talk pages have been deleted we have to go out and re-research and re-write all of the same arguments (because we can't reference them to earlier discussions). | |||
| :::For example, we talked about various court cases, I learned how to use the Indian on-line court case system, spent a great deal of time analyzing what the documents really said and what the rulings really were, and then wrote all of this out on the talk page with appropriate citations. The consensus of the editors at that time was (a) court cases were being mis-represented in the article, and (b) that anyone can sue about anything they want, doesn't mean it's noteworthy or true; if it were noteworthy there would be secondary sources. There were none, so hence, the AFDs and subsequent deletions. | |||
| :::I'm really bummed I just can't reference those talk pages as I really don't want to re-hash the same issues. This is why I think it would be useful to simply start with what secondary sources are available. If there are some that are reliable and verifiable, then it is worth moving forward on the article. If not, then we need to wait until some appear. | |||
| :::Hope this gives some background. ] (]) 13:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:50, 20 March 2008
Step one would be translating it.... I am not sure how to proceede, do you speak French? Sethie (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is really circumventing the process. According to the AFD rules, a deletion review would be required to re-post the page. And, to conduct a deletion review, secondary sources are needed.
- This page has absolutely no sources (not to mention no secondary sources), and it contains court cases only (some of which are misused, for instance, the last case is on a procedural/jurisdictional question, and not related to SRCM as a group). User:Willbeback has already noted court cases won't cut it without secondary source citation here, and, it merely repeats what was already in previous incarnations of the Sahaj Marg or Shri Ram Chandra articles.
- I am absolutely open to an article but we must follow proper procedures, which means a deletion review. Before that, there has to be reliable and verifiable secondary sources, like academic sources and/or mainstream, vetted newspapers. I've suggested before that Cult Free search for English dissertations -- this would be a good start.
- So, even before I look at the text, could you please (pretty please) provide the new material and secondary sources that would justify a deletion review? This will save us all time. Renee (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- p.s. As background for people reviewing this, the exact same primary sources as appear in this French article were researched and discussed ad nauseum on the now-deleted talk pages in English. (If I appear exasperated, this is why and my apologies.) We have had a problem with socks coming on as "new" users (e.g., see this). They bring the same primary sources, ask the same questions, and because the previous talk pages have been deleted we have to go out and re-research and re-write all of the same arguments (because we can't reference them to earlier discussions).
- So, even before I look at the text, could you please (pretty please) provide the new material and secondary sources that would justify a deletion review? This will save us all time. Renee (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- For example, we talked about various court cases, I learned how to use the Indian on-line court case system, spent a great deal of time analyzing what the documents really said and what the rulings really were, and then wrote all of this out on the talk page with appropriate citations. The consensus of the editors at that time was (a) court cases were being mis-represented in the article, and (b) that anyone can sue about anything they want, doesn't mean it's noteworthy or true; if it were noteworthy there would be secondary sources. There were none, so hence, the AFDs and subsequent deletions.
- I'm really bummed I just can't reference those talk pages as I really don't want to re-hash the same issues. This is why I think it would be useful to simply start with what secondary sources are available. If there are some that are reliable and verifiable, then it is worth moving forward on the article. If not, then we need to wait until some appear.
- Hope this gives some background. Renee (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)