| Revision as of 23:58, 19 March 2008 editReneeholle (talk | contribs)3,400 edits this is the wrong procedure, needs deletion review and secondary sources← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:11, 20 March 2008 edit undoReneeholle (talk | contribs)3,400 edits add questionNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ::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 , and, it merely repeats what was already in previous incarnations of the Sahaj Marg or Shri Ram Chandra articles. | ::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 , 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. |
::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. ] (]) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:11, 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)