Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla)

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. Although numericaly the opinions to keep exceeded to delete AfD is not a vote. The delete opinions were more policy based. As suggested by AdventurousSquirrel, I would be happy to userfy the article to anyone who wants to work on it without the spectre of AfD hanging over their head. What this means is that the page would be moved into your user-space where it can be edited freely. J04n(talk page) 11:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla)

Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG, relies heavily on self-published sources, search didn't provide significant, reliable, independent coverage. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• keep that's the only ashram in europe about Sant Mat, home of the only european guru of this path... why remove it? there are books about it and various websites about this place...--GurDass (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

in the article there are lots of references from various independent sources! --GurDass (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why the page is not ok now but it was ok for years and with the help of many wikipedia users and administrators that improved it! --GurDass (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I beg to differ. The page's edit history reveals its major contributors to be you, and other users who seem to be closely connected to the subject matter. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• keep why remove this page? the place is known and significant--MarcoG83 (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• keep Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) is a public place in Italy. Sirio Carrapa is a teacher known by many from Europe to India to South America. When I was preparing to interview him on my inter-faith radio program I used this very page as a resource to help me learn more about this particular teacher and school of philosophy. Why would anyone want to delete this entry, which has been present for many months or years? The spirit of Wikipedia is access to knowledge about many subjects from various points of view, not that of vandalism or censorship by those less sympathetic with one topic or another, or political party or another, or religion or another, etc... Making legitimate entries disappear for less that clear reasons should not be a routine occurrence here, I would hope. Third party arbitration can be useful. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As a person who uses Wikipedia articles like this one to gather information and inform your listeners, you should understand that Wikipedia's notability and verifiability policies are of the utmost importance to maintaining a quality encyclopedia. If you want a collection of ideas from self-published sources, you can simply visit the organization's website or subscribe to the "Sant Bani Magazine", which this article uses as references. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In the world there are several Sant Bani Ashrams - but it does not mean they are belonging to the same organization. Most of them are independent from each other; belong to different, separatley operating organizations. This Magazin that is mentioned, it is and indepent media from the Sant Bani Association that is running the Sant Bani Ashram in Ribolla. It is not a self publication, but was published by a totally other organization. So, it is an independent source of information.

Moroever, related to magazins; I have a question to more advanced wikipedia users; there is a Hungarian magazin, that is called LIFE magazin. This magazin was reporting about the existence of the Sant Bani Ashram in its issue July 2012; and published some interviews with Master Sirio. But it is not available as a free of charge digital media. Anyhow; once they even put the photo of Master Sirio on the cover of the magazin. But how could I mark it as independent reference; what is the correct way of it? Could you give me advice? Thanks a lot. This is the link for the covers of the magazin, where it is visible, Master Sirio was on the cover recently, (also talking about the ashram in interview): http://pozitivemberek.hu/kategoriak/49 . D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• merge to Sirio Carrapa Most of this material is already in the guru's article, and GHits (particularly GBook hits) seem to make it clear that this ashram is of interest only because of him. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

sorry don't agree... Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) was active before Sirio Carrapa become a master, and will (i hope) be active after... that place has an history also for followers of Ajaib Singh. On italian wikipedia there is no problem for these two pages....--GurDass (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It says it was founded by him in 1979! Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As is stated in the "The foundation of the ashram" section of the Sirio Carrapa page, the ashram was founded in 1979 under the tenure of the previous guru, Sant Ajaib Singh, who was guru at that time, and passed on 18 years later, in 1997. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging the two entries would be like merging the entries of 'Liberty University', 'Thomas Road Baptist Church', and 'Jerry Falwell'. If someone argued for such a merger in that case, would the motivation be to save space at Wikipedia? Or might we speculate that it's more likely to be for some other reason perhaps such as a value judgement? There is a entry for 'ashram' that might also be good for pro-deleters to thoughtfully consider. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashram Santmatradhasoami (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There are also references at Wikipedia to the Sant Bani School and Sant Bani Ashram in New Hampshire, USA. These have their own histories in connection with Ruhani Satsang and Kirpal Singh, as does Sant Bani Ashram Ribolla. To take away the entry for the one in Italy would be ill-advised. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• keep I find strange to consider removing the page about Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) as this place is an existing public place, known by lots of people around the world, shown on so many photos that it is an existing real place. I know myself that it is not a fake article, since I have been visiting this place personally many times, and meeting there with people arriving from all corners of the world, from UK to USA and Canada, from Mexico to Venezuela; from almost all countries of Europe; and even from India.

Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) is the biggest Surat Shabd Yoga meditation centre; or with other name, Sant Mat ashram in Europe. This place is operating in a fully nonprofit way; making it possible to so many people every year to practice Surat Shabd Yoga there with one of the living great Yoga Masters, Master Sirio. Even about these programs held there, one could find so many documentary photos, proving the real existence of the place, and that a number of people go there to visit it and attend programs from all over the world. Also, there are a number of other (non English language) independent (third party) websites referring to this place; reporting about programs held there, articles written by attendants of the programs etc. I do not fully understand the base of the proposal; and also that upon one proposal the page could be removed. I find this policy very strange and fully agree with Santmatradhasoami, in hoping that this page can remain on the wikipedia, after so many years, giving relevant information to all those about this place who was looking for it. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• keep this ashram is situated in the Italian landscape of Toskany. It was founded by and for the Indian spiritual master Ajaib Singh, who is a direct successor of Sant Kirpal Singh, former president of the World Conference of Religions and first asian bearer of the orden of Malta. Thus this Ashram is famous for itself and not an advertisement for the european Sant Mat master Sirio, who just had and has his private house there as well. On the contrary, this Ashram provides shelter and information about several other spiritual Masters of different Sant Mat lineages, as I can witness, being a disciple of the mentioned Sant Kirpal Singh and because in this Ashram there are books in its small library for example from Maulana Rumi (Sufi-Master and poet), Baha Ullah, Hafiz, Sawan Singh and Kirpal Singh. Thus this Ashram is unique in Europe and I am sure, there will be many more arguments to keep this Wiki-page separate to the page of Master Sirio Carrapa. (Dr.med.Dietrich Klüber).

Moreover we find similar examples in all fields of life in Wiki: The White House and pages for its presidents, The Vatikan and pages for the present pope, the Kaaba and a page for Mohammed, and last but not least Graceland and its inhabitant Elivs Presley ! So dear Squirrel, page patroller and member of the welcome comittee, please reconsider your task and be fair...Dr.med.Klüber (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

While this topic is clearly of great importance to you and your friends here involved in the discussion, unlike the easily recognizable locations with a wealth of coverage in reliable sources, I respectfully submit that this location is of questionable encyclopedic value. If you feel this article should be retained as it is, you can help your case best by familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability policies, and adding information from reliable sources independent of the subject matter. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• keep I would personally never want this page to be deleted from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richamystic (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

here you can see an article about the Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) on the CESNUR website... Cesnur it's the center of studies on new religions, an independent, famous, authoritative source... it's in italian so I was not sure to link to the english page about the ashram, but it is linked in the italian one... GurDass (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Italian and other non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, so long as they fit the description of reliable sources. Please feel free to add any you find meet such standards. It is necessary to demonstrate significant coverage in such sources. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

reference added to the page. I still don't understand why all in a sudded the page become non enciclopedic while in years it was good. Sant Mat in europe is located only here, this place is not the most important Sant Mat place in europe, it's the only one! --GurDass (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

...maybe not the only place of Sant Mat in Europe; but definitely it is the biggest center of Surat Shabd Yoga or Sant Mat in Europe. Here is an other reference to "talk" about independent "cover": http://aranyhegy.com/sirio-mester#ashram ; I am going to add to the references. Thanks for letting know not only English language references are accepted. ((Above in a comment I wrote not correctly "greatest centre"; sorry I am non-English, I meant biggest.)) D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• keep I find it strange to first question the relevance of the page; then suggest merging it into an other page. The Sant Bani Ashram itself - the public place - is the property of the Sant Bani Association and not Master Sirio. He has his own property, that is separated from the Sant Bani Ashram; moreover he is not even living on the property of the Ashram. I really agree with Dr.med.Klüber; to my eyes it would be the same thing like proposing merging the wiki page of the Vatikan with that of the present pope and so on... By the way, this is a fully independent site from Sant Bani Ashram: http://aranyhegy.com that is also referring to and telling about the Ashram; it is in Hungarian; but still an independet source of information that is confirming the real existence and usage of the public place in question. There are also other independent websites telling about the Ashram - but in Hungarian. Anyhow; I will collect them then later on and add to the reference list. I did not think of doing it before, as they are in Hungarian. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• keep I was looking once, over the internet, for any of the Ashrams located in Europe that propagate teachings of Santmat and was pleased to find this page - it is great to know that there are centres in that part of the world who do so much to preserve & propagate the priceless esoteric wisdom of sants (saints) from all across the globe. Santmat is a completely secular, harmonious, syncretist, non-sectarian and purely spiritual school of thought which is doing so much to spread positive feelings so very essential to bring about real peace in a world that is torn by so much of strife, ill-will, animosity & hatred. All such centres are places are a great relief for the humanity at large and, hence, any attempt to notify or publish information about such places should be strongly encouraged and supported by all well-meaning sections or individuals.

So, personally I consider it a verily unfair and biased idea to delete a page like this, and, therefore, very strongly recommend that the page be kept. - Pravesh K. Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveshksingh (talk • contribs) 05:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• keep - Dear All, I was editing the article; also adding one more new reference for the sake of "significant cover"; and adding new - in my opinion - more informative photo montage also. I was pondering over all the pros and kontras of this discussion, and I made these changes in the article about the Sant Bani Ashram in Ribolla, after understanding (hopefully) why it could have been proposed for deleting or merging. So, please, AdventurousSquirrel and all others taking part in the discussion, go and see the page now, if in your opinion all the information are more understandable now to describe and give information about this public place, called Sant Bani Ashram - Ribolla. If you have any further advice to improve the page, please let me know.

In my opinion the information that is on the page is trustworthy, hopefully detailed and informative enough for everybody who would like to know about this place. I really disagree with merging as well, since the place in a way is independent from Master Sirio Carrapa, SSYoga master, as the public place, Sant Bani Ashram - as written above - is the property of the Sant Bani Association, so I do not see the point in merging the two pages. One is representing a public person; and the other is representing a public place, that has its own history. I myself am the vice-president of the SBA Association, knowing the ashram and its history very well. So, I cannot accept the deleting of the page upon the given reasons, but of course I am ready to edit the content and reference list upon good and useful advices from expert wiki users. My activity is fully nonprofit in it, such as that of anybody for the ashram and the all operation and running of the place. So, please respect the noble purpose behind the case, and instead of propsing for deletion, help to improve the page to those people who were creating it and who may be less knowledgeable in wiki terms then other expert ones. Thanks a lot. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I truly applaud your efforts and thank you for your polite discourse. I understand that this is a subject matter of great importance to you, but must I ask you to please review Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of topics, identifying reliable sources, and also the guideline on editing with a conflict of interest, and let me or another uninvolved party know if you have some specific questions about Wikipedia guidelines and policies. On a side note, although an AfD is not a popular vote, please make sure that you "!vote" only once, as voting more than once can lead to the false impression that you are attempting to unfairly influence the decision making process. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

can I know when and who fill finally decide about this page? I really think that there are good reasons (and good sources) to keep it, and I still don't see anybody saying and proofing the opposite (except you, but with no elements to support your opinion). Let's end this story in a way or the other! --GurDass (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Another example of the normality or precedent of an entry for a spiritual teacher AND another page about the ashram associated with the same path or philosophy: Jai Gurudev: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jai_gurudev Naam yog Sadhna Mandir ('mandir' is another term for ashram): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naam_yog_Sadhna_Mandir No, deletion is not always the answer. In this case it seems unreasonable to assume no improvements can be forthcoming. The default position should always be to seek to improve articles. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, the three of you talk and talk and talk and talk and talk. But in the end, Jai Gurudev is sourced from newspaper articles and the like, not from his books or those of his supporters. You do the same, and this article can stay. The more words you pour over us, the more it is obvious that you cannot do this thing. You have to do research in secondary sources like everyone else; I would like to think that, as adherents, you might have a better idea where to find them, but if you cannot produce them, then we shall be forced to conclude that the ashram isn't notable (which is to say, nobody outside its own little world cares about it), and the article will be deleted. Quit wasting our time by going on at length with WP:WALL's of text which don't address the core problem. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No need for your anger here dude. One person has made some additions to the page in question and says he will add more. In good faith let's see if this happens. About this page for discussion it says: "You are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome." "Please share your thoughts on the matter." We have been doing just that. OK, and if I feel to need to make other comments.... I will. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I linked in the page the center for studies on new religions. That alone is surely enough. So now we can remove this discussion and the page can remain. --GurDass (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually I linked the reference of the Hungarian Golden Mountain Association - that is a fully independent organization with more hundred followers. Still some users talk about "talking". So, what is the point in that we are editing and trying to improve the page - upon your useful advice, if you do not even take them into consideration or check it up? Of course, again you may say i keep talking. But I do not feel to get relevant helping attitude feedback on the improvements that we made on the page. Could you please do? So, there are the new references from the center for studies on new religions; the Golden Mountain Association... Thanks a lot for your help. Maybe we are not notable in using the wikipedia yet (as being beginners); but it does not mean the entry that we made is also not. We highly appreciate your helpful positive attitude in improving the available content on WP. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

one week passed. So? --GurDass (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

one week passed or not - I think the article about the Sant Bani Ashram improved a lot. So I must acknowledge, for this reason this discussion around the topic was for good reason, thanks for all those taking part in it. Moreover, I, myslef understood, that we have to add more independent cover to show the notability and significance of the entry. So by now some more independent references were added; and in a short time - after understanding the motivation behind the proposal of deletion - I am sure more relevant, significant references will be available. Anyhow, I would kindly ask other more expert users, to be more patient - in their communication as well - with other less expert ones. Definitely, the Sant Bani Ashram in Ribolla is not a global multinational organization - and it never wants to become one. But still, it is the biggest center of Surat Shabd Yoga in Europe, and more hundred people know about it and in the chores of time a growing number of people go to visit it every year to attend programs there, so I would never say the place as a public place is not notable. So, after adding new references, I would suggest to close this discussion, and with good faith, remove the proposal for deletion from the article, as according to the standars of WP the article could be accepted very well, and let us see if by time it keeps improving, as I am sure, it will, since everything has a starting point in life. Thank you. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I ask for a final decision on this deletion. I really think there is no element to delete this page. It is well sourced with links taken from newspapers, indepentent sant mat websites and the Center for Studies on New Religions also talks about this place. That is a not-common place, free and non-profit. A week is passed and nobody except for the user that originally asked for deletion agreed with him... --GurDass (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The majority of the keep votes are formatted in the same unusual way. Not that I'm paranoid or anything but... most have little to no contributions outside this article and/or this deletion discussion. I think it's fair to suspect either WP:SOCK or WP:MEATSOCK - Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - I fail to see the notability of the subject, sourcing issues also Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

---

• Comment on relisting: While the effort of our new users should be applauded their connection to the subject can not be overlooked. Would like to see an assessment of the recently submitted sources/external links before this discussion is closed. J04n(talk page) 12:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear J04n; could you please explain to me what it does mean? D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Simply that I would like folks without an association with the subject to comment on the sources provided. J04n(talk page) 14:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I must disagree, the article has external and reliable sources, and this is a fact: magazines, books with ISBN, CESNUR... this is a fact and can't be contested. So this deletion process is based on opinions or facts? I have hundreds of edits on both english and italian wikipedia since years.GurDass (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Non notable CORP or ORG, stablishing a book with ISBN is not a reason to sustain verifiability or notability, as all of theses seem to be primary sources, all of them seem material produced by the company itself. Wikipedia is not a directory for every single SPA/Yoga center in the world. Also search does not prove its basic statement biggest functioning Yoga center in Europe. A search for the book with the respective ISBN also do not bring any result as per Special:BookSources/8888282556. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

these links are not produced by the "company" (there is no company!):

http://www.cesnur.org/religioni_italia/r/radhasoami_02.htm http://aranyhegy.com/sirio-mester#ashram http://www.abc-of-meditation.com/view-refer.asp?id=12839&ReturnPage=%2Ftps%2Fpresentation-preview-short-retreatcenter.asp%3FTP_ID%3D12839 --GurDass (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

it is true. The Sant Bani Ashram is owned and directed by a fully nonprofit association that has no payed employers and nobody is earning any profit through its operation. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

and nobody claimed this is the biggest yoga center in europe, this is the only Surat Shabd Yoga place in europe with a living Guru of this specific path/faith! --GurDass (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

it is true, I must agree with GurDass concerning this: "Also search does not prove its basic statement biggest functioning Yoga center in Europe" - I am sorry, but nobody claimed it. There are many types of yoga in the world. there are basic groups, or lets say types of yoga, like hatha-yoga, bhakti yoga etc... And those have many ramifications, different Yoga traditions grew out from these base elements. Surat Shabd Yoga or Sant Mat is one of these traditions that has so many followers around the world; more hundred thousands of people who gather around living Masters. Sant Bani Ashram is not a yoga center in the way as any westerner would think after hearing the word 'yoga'. It is not a place like yoga centers in the cities where people go to have kind of training. This public place is a place where regular mediation retreats are organizad, that includes certain kind of elements, but not physical training for what peopel pay. With other words we could say, it is a nonprofit place (not like any yoga center where people do physical practice; here it is not done) that could be cathegorized as recreational center, meditation center, pilgrimage (of Sant Mat), health center, Ayurvedic center, personal develeopment center and so on. These are all included. And about telling it is the biggest: its land is 17 hectars big, that has 4 main builidings (inculding separated man and woman dormitory with several independent bathrooms), a meditation hall: indoor and ourdoor as well; an artificial lake; its own solar panel system and piped water system, electricity and so on and so forth - though it is really located in the nature. I have never heard about a bigger public place like this in Europe used for the purpose. As far as my knowledge goes, it is a fact - and nobody every proved the opposite - that Sant Bani Ashram in Ribolla is the biggest public place in Europe where Sant Mat is practiced. Moreover, as I wrote, it is not a simple "yoga center", but a public place that is running in a fully nonprofit way with the noble purpose of bringing peace and improvement in the quality of life for those visiting it. Actually, probably that is one reason why nobody cared of "significant cover" before, because it is fully running in a nonprofit way. So I really find it strange to kind of attack the page about this public place like this - as I wrote before, that from now on, care is going to be taken of this aspect also - mean "significant, independent cover". Moreover there are a number of publications (but not all in English) reporting about the Ashram and the spiritual work done here, but unfortunatelly a big number of them is not digital media; and also it takes some more time to collect everything in a well arranged way. As I wrote once before Sant Bani Magazin also has nothing in common with this Ashram in Europe. That Magazin is printed in the USA, and lets say it is one of the biggest magazin of Sant Mat, like a professional media of the case. I hope I expressed myself well enough in English. So, it is also a fully independet source of information, this Ashram itself has nothing to do with the magazin - has no effect on what is printed or written there; so if they reported on the Ashram, it means they - like professional media of the case - found it notable, significant and relevant. Sant Bani - means the teachings of the Saints or the voice of the Saints and many public places wear this name where Sant Mat or Surat Shabd Yoga is practiced - though they are fully independent from each other, belonging to totally different, separate, independent organizations or persons. So, again thank you for your poinitngs out, but also, I would like to ask to remove the deletion proposal, as the article was edited and shaped; and also independent references were marked, and as was said, will be added as well. So, more references will be add by and by; but seeing the good efforts of the editors of the page, please remove the proposal for deletion. I must say, there are some wikipedia articles that are even less supproted by references, and they do not have such a detailed description, but nobody ever questions their relevancy or notability. I wonder why. Thanks for your help.D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• A comment to our two wall-of-texting extremely involved respondents: first, it's blatantly obvious that one of you has a very close and direct relationship with the ashram, given that you are providing us with images from the ashram's website which you claim to have taken yourself. I have to believe that the other has a similar if not as obvious connection. Second, your attitude towards the place is plainly promotional: you want it to be documented here because it's important to you, and you want it documented in a way that you think would attract others to it. Most people write about things here that they love, but to be successful they (and you) need to write about them in some other fashion besides as lovers. Third, running on and on and burying us in words is not the way to positively influence people here; neither are threats/demands of process. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice way of putting it. But it was written, it was a wall of discussion. So what is a discussion, if not discussing the topic. Then I find it strange to be blamed of trying to go into a discussion to better understand the case. And on the other hand, I would think that is how WP improves and groves, that people, who has knowledge of a given topic, they create a descriptive article, documented with pictures and supported with references, independent as well. So again, I find it strange to be instead of thanked to make an article, that gives information about a public place, and again working a lot with it, in trying to improve according WP standards, to again be blamed, because of being linked to it in any way. I wonder, who else could write better on a public place but that, who likes it, so, for this reason studied it, visited it... As you also wrote Mangoe: Most people write about things here that they love. That is how information is created all over the internet; and if somebody knows eg a public place better, the information may be more reliable and relevant. I do not think that tha article is trying to convince anybody about anything - but it is a descreption, telling about the present conditions and details of the place, telling the history of its foundation, reason, development, purpose etc. So, please, then instead of only referring to it, let me know which is the part exactly that you think is not descriptive, but propaganda. In my editings I really tried to focus on the facts - but since we are all different - maybe to others it does not seem like. Anyhow, to conclude, I do not take your proposals at all as being opponents, but I really take it as a useful help, and I am very glad that the description of this public place did improve. As I wrote before, I, myself understood what was meant under "significant cover" - and be sure, by and by, -as soon as possible- it will be listed under the article. So, thanks for your helping cooperation.D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:ORG. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. Location (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

yes, I love the subject of the page and I'm involved with it. But this does not mean that I can also talk on the subject in an enciclopedic way. The sources are provided, I listed some links some comments ago and I can repeat them:

CESNUR page, not affiliated with the subject, super partes organization

another website that refers to the place, not affiliated to it

same here

To this we can add lots of numbers of "Sant Bani Magazines" printed in america by another association that refers to this and this only place as the only place in italy about Surat Shabd Yoga (Ajaib Singh branch).

So these are external sources, not involved with the subject and not in control by me, the owner association of the place.

These are facts. If you find some part of the article that is not in good form, we can improve it. But the place remains relevant as the only Sant Mat ashram with the only Sant Mat Guru in europe, that is also one of the EIGHT Guru all over the world on this branc as you can see on Kirpal_Singh#Legacy_and_succession. This place is unique as Vatican or Kaaba. The numbers are different, but not the relevance for adherents of this path/faith (also called Radhasoami ). --GurDass (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Userfy: I nominated this for deletion because IMO it doesn't meet the requirements of a mainspace article, but the argument could be made that it is a good candidate article to userfy rather than delete. I still am not convinced that there are enough reliable sources that exist on this topic to make it possible to save as a standalone article, but there are clearly a few new editors involved here who are undeniably committed to improving/saving the article. If such an action were indeed to take place, however, I would again encourage the new editors to really make an effort to familiarize themselves with: WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:COI (including the COI guide. It looks like they might not be exactly the same as they are on English Wikipedia, but please note that these documents should exist in several languages in the interlanguage links along the side of the page to make them easily accessible to users most comfortable with languages other than English. (Nominator) AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2013 (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.