Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Brahma Kumaris movement

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. — TKD::Talk 16:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Brahma Kumaris movement

This is a (partial) copy of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University created by a new editor who has persistently refused to engage in discussion or participate in consensus building on that article. It other words, it is intended as a WP:POVFORK. There is no need to break the history out of the article. "Original" copy and paster removed a prod tag. IPSOS (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the history including numerous sockpuppets, bannings and arbitration, a fork like this is totally inappropriate. There needs to be concensus developed for material on THAT page, then, if the article gets big enough, then a moving of it, not one user, who doesn't work towards concensus at all, coming over here and starting something. Sethie 04:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The repeated re-inclusion of copy-vio posters [1] that a previous editor Green108 was using as a basis for original research gives some indication where the article is heading. As a background, I have filed an SSP report on this editor and I also suggest reading this discussion page as this shows how strongly and stubbornly the original research is being promoted even after being clearly exposed as such by Utcursch. In the interests of disclosure, I must state that I am a member of the BKWSU and am primarily concerned with BKWSU-related articles due to the attacking nature of the article as it used to be. I am very grateful to the unaffiliated editors who have helped bring the article up to Wikipedia's standards. Regards Bksimonb 06:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No decision has been made on the copyright status of the posters. --Lwachowski 23:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coldmachine^Talk 07:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally inappropriate. Riveros11 13:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I started this topic, moving the first paragraphs from the main BKWSU topic. The article was flagged up as a stub and requires time development but the material are there to do so, both with regards to the early and recent history. Where the main article documents the beliefs and lifestyle, this topic is intended to

frame and document that within social and historical factors
allow for a not only a much bigger, detailed picture
a chronology of accurately documented dates and events uptodate.

Of course, it only makes sense if linked to form the original article. There would not be enough room to do so. It would not be directly relevant to the main topic.

Within the history of Pre-Partition India, and being on the border of India and Pakisthan, the organisation is noteworth for its role in almost bring down the Sindhi government invoking the involvement of the British Raj. It is intended to place it within its context of the experience of the mainly Hindu Sindi Pakisthanis, Amir and the Bhaiband communities. Good reference material exits from the 30s, 70s and uptodate.

It is as easy for individuals to brew up shortsighted prejudices and accusations, attempting to block any non-BKWSU involvement on technicalities, as it is for them to use the undo button to delete others work. It is neither productive nor does not create well referenced articles. As Bksimonb correctly discloses of himself, Riveros11 is also a BK follower. Their intention appears to be block the development any of these topic beyond the limitations of the current BKWSU own publicity material. --Lwachowski 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why come over here and create a new page? Why not work this material into the main BK page and then remove or expand it if that page got too large?

Because a lot of the material you introduced here would not fly there.

~~:Given your edit history, and that you introduced all sorts of wikilinks, but neglected to leave a wikilink to BKWSU! tells the whole story.~~ Sethie 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. Actually I did add a Wikilink back to the main article. It was removed by IPSOS. I would argue that tells even more about the whole story . [2].

Sethie. It would have taken less energy to have just added to yourself rather than write a line whindging. That is what the Wiki is all about. There are no categories either yet because I have not had time.

I have started development of the timeline. Obviously at present it is just a sketch as if the article is going to be deleted there is no much point putting too much work into it ... but again, the idea is that other can contribute rather than squash new idea and research. I hope this illustrates why it will be a useful and valid page. --Lwachowski 05:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have inserted the commnunity site and other links into the article. This was removed from the BKWSU article after an rfc. This just backs up what Sethie says in that you are (re)introducing material that won't fly on the original article. Bksimonb 05:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after looking at the edit war going on over at the main article, this clearly appears to be a POV fork per nominator. GlassFET 14:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.