Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Share International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Share International

Share International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:N. A lot of OR too. There are only two sources cited, one being cited quite a bit. I don't know of the validity of the sources. The links in the first paragraph all redirect back to the article. Undeath (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep a cult/new religious movement that advertizes the messiah in newspapers all over the world passes Wikipedia:notability. Sources are fine and I have more (see talk), but cannot improve it here and now, because I do not have access to the sources right now and because I was topic banned by the arbcom for a related subject (Sathya Sai Baba). Andries (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • how does placing newspaper ads, even "all over the world", satisfy WP:CORP? At all? dab (𒁳) 13:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I admit I did not read it well, but it certainly satisfies WP:N according to the first sentence: "it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", as the references of the article prove. Andries (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources appear to be O.K. Article needs better footnoting to sort out what's really in the sources and what is not, but deletion is not the answer to this problem, IMO. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Passes notability. asenine say what? 09:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but remove all the unsourced Bible discussion and find better sources. This group is rather notable in the development of the New Age movement. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge with Benjamin Creme. Share International is notable in the New Age movement as the group which placed newspaper ads around the world proclaiming a New Age Christ has arrived, but whether this is actually a "group" as opposed to a one-man show is in question. It is one of several such groups founded by Benjamin Creme, all of whose notability is one and the same as Benjamin Creme's notability and perhaps best consolidated into a single article about Creme and his activities. Changing vote from the above "keep". KleenupKrew (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It is certainly not a one man show. Share International has local offices in among others London and Amsterdam. I have seen the one in Amsterdam. Nevertheless, I admit that merging increases maintainability. Andries (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or do a major rewrite - The nom is correct that this article has serious issues with WP:CORP and WP:N as well as having WP:V and WP:OR problems. If the group has indeed had an impact on the developement of the New Age movement, that fact needs to be stated in the article and there should be far more reliable sources that discuss that impact. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The main claim to notability seems to be a 1988 The Sunday Times article. In any case merge with Benjamin Creme. dab (𒁳) 13:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or major rewrite as per Blueboar's points, and if we keep it seriously needs to be merged with the Creme article.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as a notable subject but badly written article. — Wenli (reply here) 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge with Benjamin Creme - there are thousands of people in over 40 countries that support Share International and the work of Benjamin Creme. To suggest that it may be a one-man show, is uninformed. Jon33 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Blueboar, or alternatively merge as per Dbachmann Jimfbleak (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is nothing more than blatant advertising intended as promotion for Share International. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That is a ridiculous allegation when the article contains sourced statements like "These beliefs and claims have been described as fantastic and outlandish by the British journalist Mick Brown.", and "Some Christian pastors maintain that the Share International version of Maitreya is the Anti-Christ." Andries (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Really? The article was already speedy deleted on those grounds, and all you did was restore it. The article, as a whole, is written in a way intended to attract attention to, and promote, Share International, and it has nothing encyclopedic about it. I call that blatant advertising. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I will be happy to let the other editors who are participating in this AfD to read the article and judge for themselves if it is blatant advertising. (NB: If you want to argue about this further, it might be better to put that on the talk page.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am the only one who is active on the talk page until now and I agree with you that that is where the discussion should take place, so please come there too. Andries (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a notable subject but badly written article. Afd is not for cleanup, if you think the article is an advert/original research etc then use the tags {{original research}} {{advert}} as that's what they are for, or if you have the time change the tone so it's not advertising and/or remove the WP:OR. SunCreator (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • on what grounds do you judge it is "notable"? A 20 year old newspaper article? dab (𒁳) 07:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This editor did not read the article, and was annoyed that I suggested he should! [1] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Hey, I was not annoyed! The nominators issue is with notability, having found that it's notable, that is enough. SunCreator (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The subject is notable as is proven for example by the sourced statement that Creme's statement served as catalyst to the Christian Evangelicals to make up their minds about the New Age movement. Also the extensive and in depth treatment by the British journalist Mick Brown. Andries (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand There seem to be plenty of sources available for such article: [2]. If these sources, after being evaluated, are not sufficient, the article can be redirected as proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What I see in your link to googlebooks is two or three self published volumes, and a book by Lee Penn that was controversial when proposed as a source in the Alice Bailey article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the feeling simply won't go away that we are being taken for a ride here. One Sunday Times article is insufficient for notability and the rest of the references are essentially self-published. I remain unconvinced about the notability of the organisation. TerriersFan (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Rest of the references are essentially self-published? You are completely mistaken. Andries (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • TerriersFan, only one of 22 references is self-published. Please explain how an article published by the Free university Amsterdam press is "essentially self-published". Andries (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Andries, every book that you use for a source is a compilation, which mentions Share International in a by-the-way manner. Never is Creme, or his so-called organization, discussed in a serious manner, or is it presented as truly influential in the New Age movement (or any other movement). Share International gets the attention that it does only because Creme is wealthy and can afford to pay for newspaper ads, press conferences, and can pay for publishing the Share International journal and site. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Untrue, the book by Mick Brown gives an in depth treatment. pages 6-25 and pages 250-260. Andries (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Mick Brown's book, The Spiritual Tourist: A Personal Odyssey Through the Outer Reaches of Belief, does not give an "in depth treatment" of anything, and particularly not of Creme and Share International. The book is not a scholarly study, but intended as an impressionistic account of some strange and amusing aspects of the New Age. Brown makes it clear that he considers Creme's claims bazaar, and considers him fascinating but not important. It is not necessary for anyone who is interested to take my word for it because Amazon.com makes this book searchable [3], so all that is necessary is to enter "creme" in the search box. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Your statement that Creme is wealthy is not supported by a reliable source. Andries (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • [4] seems more credible than anything in the entire, laughable, article. What seems incredible is Wikipedia allowing, and editors actually discussing keeping, an article of that nature and that quality. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Your angry reaction about this surprises me. Benjamin Creme's willingness to fund Share International, as something he believes in; seems very admirable, and makes me respect his sincerity (although that makes the article no better). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Mick Brown (journalist) is convinced about his sincerity. You do not have to be rich to place once is 30 year large advertisements in newspapers. Andries (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This article has now 29-2=27 notes to 8 7 different reliable 3rd party sources. This must be better than more than 95% of the other Wikipedia articles. Andries (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Note from relisting admin: Article has changed substantially since most of the above discussion took place. I am relisting it so the discussion can center on the article as it currently stands.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2008 (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.