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 speedy delete. CSD G11. While the article is only borderline promotional, by deleting it this way a new article can be written that won't be subject to CSD G4. If somebody still wishes to try and fix this one, I'll be glad to userfy it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Gyan Foundation[edit]

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

A shameless dollop of WP:OR and promotion, concerning a non-notable organization, supported by primary/unreliable sources and WP:SYNTH. Pol430 talk to me 11:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Encourage author to find better refs. Seems like the author is willing to do what it takes to fix the article. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 13:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'll try to fix it if it's fixable. But for that I need to understand the specifics of each problem posited here:

A shameless dollop of WP:OR
promotion
non-notable organisation in whose eyes? How many people out of our over six billion must consider it notable for you guys to agree that it is?
which are the unreliable sources (except perhaps the two primary ones)?
in what way does the article employ WP:SYNTH?

Knowing how busy everyone is, how can I get help to understand these issues for this specific article?

Cneeds (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you need answers then either take the time to read the rules and fix your article, or email me. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hg, I will email you next week as I am travelling at present. I have read all the relevant rules but will do so again to refresh and reflect on these specific points. Cneeds (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs cleanup, not deletion. I'm too tired to do anything much tonight, but quick comments on those five points:

Original research is basically any claim that isn't directly supported by reliable sources (see also WP:Verifiability). Specifically, that whole bit about the meaning of Tejgyan - since Tej is apparently a made-up word, I think the best you can do is cite a primary source (i.e. something by Sirshree) to verify what he says it means, and cut out all the rest. Also, the story of Sirshree's spiritual journey; has this ever been covered by independent sources?
The function of any article is to provide information about the subject, not to promote it. As a general rule, text copied straight from the organisation's website is rarely suitable. If you have a close connection to the company, you'll need to read WP:Conflict of interest. The tone of this article is an issue as well. It's important to try to discuss spiritual matters without lapsing into a spiritual style of language. Cold, hard facts are needed. What is a 'highly evolved society' and how does one go about creating it? What does this organisation actually do?
WP:Notability isn't about how many people know about it, but how much coverage it has from independent, reliable sources. It seems to pass the test, as far as I'm concerned.
I can't see any unreliable sources, but plenty of irrelevant ones. Sources are generally used to verify statements, not provide additional tangentially-related information. That's what the Further reading section is for. Primary sources are fine for verifying the company's motto and mission statement.
Synthesis is just a type of original research. Again, just tie the meaning of Tejgyan to concrete sources or get rid of it.

Hope this helps. I'm going to bed. DoctorKubla (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DoctorKubla for your insightful feedback and assistance. I hope (with help from Hg) that I will be able to correct all the issues within a week or so (when my travels will hopefully be over). Cneeds (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "I can't see any unreliable sources" — the India enews source is a press release and there were several more at the time of nomination. The only reliable source that gives significant coverage of the foundation is this one. I would say this one is of dubious reliablity. The others are either primary sources (and therefore unsuitable for conferring notability) or irrelevant—the books do not appear to discuss the foundation itself. Pol430 talk to me 17:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just went through and cleared out the useless bits (e.g., references that don't actually mention the subject, links to bookstores, non-existent categories, etc.) to see what was left. All I found was a lot of twaddle about "knowledge beyond carnal knowledge and ignorance, beyond knowing or not knowing" and such-like. The only solid cite I found was SRK's Happy Thoughts from The Indian Express, and even that isn't even about the Foundation as such. I don't have a high opinion of the one from The Times of India as it doesn't have an author, which usually means it's just a reprint from somewhere else (such as a wire story or press release). Zero Google News hits and zero Google News Archive hits. Virtually all the Google Book hits appear to be by the founder of the group, which makes them self-published sources. I'm not impressed by what I've been able to find (little to nothing), and this article is such a load of advertising ("Well-known personalities from all walks of life… have participated in programs organized by the foundation") and double-talk ("the mission of creating a highly evolved society through all-round self development of every individual that transforms all the facets of their lives") that it doesn't help, but rather, makes the situation look even worse.
If you really feel the need to try to save this sad thing, start with a completely blank slate, and then add only information you can get from secondary reliable sources. My guess, based on my searching: you won't find enough to support an article. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 10:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by relister: my aim in relisting is to give the article author a little time to improve the article following advice given here. JohnCD (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I consider it unfixable. The only way to possibly do it would be to start over. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the last person to edit the article, I couldn't agree more with this assessment. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dori. mabdul 19:24, 10 May 2012 (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.