RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Prem Rawat

Prem Rawat | Result: Severely trimmed the page

Prem Rawat (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Keep

1. Okay, I made some light improvements on the article. Tone's not quite so off, and citing some missionworthy concerns(Though I don't know about this source I used: [1]). I'm skeptical about that's site's claims that the wikipedia page is whitewashed. It could just be a belligerent ex-follower. It's really hard to say. Ikanreed (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

   I agree it's a good page to have as such; but right now (even after your improvements) it's very difficult to judge what's true here. There are some bold claims about slavery and scamming, but doesn't really cite any references or bring arguments (I would *not* consider the ex-premie & prem-rawat-critique.org to be very good references here)... For all I know, this page could just be a bunch of misinformation... Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yeah, I've got no firsthand knowledge, which makes me uncertain about everything. "Nuke and remake later" is always an option, I suppose. Ikanreed (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

   Interestingly that domain is registered through domainsbyproxy, which hides identifying information of the actual register. Certainly there could be legitimate reasons for this, but when it comes to a hit-piece of a site, I'm thinking it's probably the opposite of reliable. Probably should yank it as a ref. Ikanreed (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

   Excellent improvements to the article. My only motivation for putting it here was the way that attempts to put truthful information onto wikipaedia were quashed by cult members, so the article there reads as if it's a fairly benign cult. It would be good to have a warning here for anybody investigating it, but I quite understand, particularly as I've not got time or energy to rewrite the whole thing, if it's deleted. It'd be a minor public service, I think, to keep it, but I agree on all the points about quality and references. Fustbariclation (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

2. REWRITE REWRITE REWRITE Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Keep. Entirely missional. Rewrite useful - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete

1. Not just incoherent and difficult to follow, large parts don't quite match what I read on WP for example (doesn't mean it's not true, of course, but no references cited here). Perhaps worst of all, almost all of the article is copied ad-vebatim from ex-premie.org (article links to the pages, so you can check yourself) Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

   KILL KILL KILL (or wipe it and rewrite) Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

2. Ditto. Spud (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Agree with all of the above. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Agree. Attempted to be funny rather than telling something that is likely to be correct. Contractor (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat

1. Seems like the subject would be on mission, but it's way too badly written and sourced to keep as is. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Seems like a perfect candidate for an RW article, but needs someone knowledgeable about the subject with basic writing skills. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. I did some rewriting, but I lack confidence in the quality of my reference materials because I've never heard of these guys until today. Ikanreed (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

   Perhaps we could reduce (ie. rewrite) it to a basic stub, which probably won't be too informative, but at least won't be wrong, either... Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)