Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samanta Institute of Science and Technology

Add links
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 delete. The existing article history needs to be deleted;I notice Ravensfire's rewrite still has much of the content marked, correctly, as cite needed--and it's negative material about a LP. No objection at all for Ravensfire or some other neutral established editor to reinsert a sourced article. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samanta Institute of Science and Technology

[edit]
Samanta Institute of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was rewritten today by an editor who was then blocked. I went back through its history trying to find a sourced and NPOV version, but failed.

So far as I can tell, no matter which SPA last edited it, this has always been an article full of accusations and innuendo. At various points, it has included allegations about hit men, US government malfeasance, religious cults, attempted murders, and media conspiracies. There appear to be two groups in a slow-moving edit war, and both sides to want it to be an attack page against the other.

Researching the name, I found a few GHits, but not enough to prove notability. Google News archive only has two hits.

In short: it's a an attack page on a non-notable topic, and should go. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The article as it exist now is not encyclopedic in tone at all. I am familiar with hearing news reports on Green Bay, Wisconsin television stations. So it has been discussed in local media, as evidenced by (unwikilinked) WSAW-TV's citations from the television affiliates in the Wausau television (the other local television market). The group is extremely controversial so I'm not surprised to see an article like this pop up from 2 opposing SPAs. Words like "allegations, conspiracies, and cults" have been thrown around about the group. In summary, the article isn't worth saving as it is right now but I think that there are reliable sources to make an article. I'm not going to spend time on it. No prejudice against someone creating an article later but only if written up to Wikipedia standards. Royalbroil 04:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after seeing Ravensfire's rewrite, I am satisfied that the article meets GNG. There is enough verifiable content from reliable sources on this very controversial group. Royalbroil 13:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The confusion apparent in this article centres on an ongoing legal dispute involving the new religious movement founded by R.C. Samanta Roy, known currently as Avraham Cohen. Here is one recent report about what is happening.[1] If no reliable sources exist reporting on the NRM and Avraham Cohen himself has no notability (beyond news stories involving ongoing legal proceedings), there seems to be no justification at present for an article either on the institute, the NRM or the founder. Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hopelessly slanted and the sources don't appear to meet reliability standards. I see little evidence of notability. EyeSerenetalk 09:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nobody Ent 10:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep GNews search for "Samanta Roy Institute of Science and Technology" (with quotation marks) gives back six pages of results. I haven't been through them all (don't have time at present), but there could well be a pass of the WP:GNG in there. Running the same search through GBooks provides several legal documents as well. However, the whole article would need rewriting from scratch if kept. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a number of articles at ReligionNewsBlog (which, despite the URL, is a news aggregator). Yunshui 雲‍水 15:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Couldn't find any really strong sources for this and the current article is an absolute mess, full of unsourced speculation mixed with badly sourced junk and the occasional decently sourced minor nugget. Ravensfire (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone through the article pulling out unreliable sources, POV commentary and unsourced negative comments towards BLP's. WP:RS is a policy that must be enforced, even for articles going through an AFD. Attempts to re-add the information without adequate sourcing will be reverted. Ravensfire (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I've been doing some more searches and I think there's enough out there to meet the notability requirements. There's a collection of articles about the group from rickross.com, just realize there is a POV to Rick Ross. The bankruptcy mentioned in the article is under a totally different name, Yehud-Monosson USA, Inc., which turned up some more tidbits. Royal's comment is very on point though - this group has a fair amount of local drama around it. It seems to have been around for a while and while unfortunate for the group, some of their recent filings in the bankruptcy case are getting some wider exposure. Ravensfire (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons suggested by WP:TNT. If Ravensfire and Yunshui want to write a decent article about it, I have no complaints, but the current content and all its history are too far gone. Let's say that they write a decent article tomorrow — they'll still have to start over 100%, so the current content won't help at all. Nyttend backup (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If SIST is going to be a page on here, then the human and civil rights issues in the community are going to be a topic. Here is the fist sentence of the article "And what did we learn today, class? At Sacred Heart Catholic School in Shawano, Wisconsin, a recent lesson plan revealed to students that saying “I love you” in one’s native tongue is something worthy of disciplinary action....." As you can see this is not 10 miles from Shawano, it is right in Shawano. If WP is going to reference slanderous articles, then I am going to be forced to add relevancy from other sources to the topic with factual articles regarding the human rights abuses in the community so the average reader from a different community becomes educated that SIST and civil/human rights issues go hand in hand. Kerev HaEmet (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike the nom said, this page was not created by a single purpose account. It was created by myself, a veteran editor with thousands of diverse contributions. It has been significantly modified from the last version when I first created it, and few of the sources I placed in it from then are still in it. This is the version from when I last worked on it, and it clearly seemed notable then. I have not paid much attention to editing ever since. Shaliya waya (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Got a diff for where I said anything at all about the creator of the article?

    If you're referring to my statement "this has always been an article full of accusations and innuendo," keep in mind that one side believes that referring to the group as a "cult" is itself an attack, and that your version used "cult" five times in its four paragraphs (not to mention that of its two categories, one was Category:Cults). Also, I never said that every editor that's touched it is an SPA, just that a lot of SPAs have been involved here—and I think that that's fairly obvious. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is important to realize that if a certain word such as "cult" is a problem, all it takes is an edit to change that, not deletion. Also, SPAs are not always a bad thing. It is perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines to edit only one article in one's life or make just a single edit if it is productive. Shaliya waya (talk) 21:10, 6 March 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, v/r - TP 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nothing in the rewrite (which largely consists of unsourced -- and, in some cases, defamatory -- material) suggests a reason to keep. The only reliable references are in a local newspaper, The Shawano Leader. -- 202.124.74.142 (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although there is no "Institute" run by SIST, SIST does seem to be or have been some kind of religious organisation, as well as a collection of retail outlets. However, any article about SIST as a religious organisation (assuming it is notable as such) would have to start from scratch: there is nothing here worth keeping. -- 202.124.73.67 (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although this is a notable topic in some ways, the Shawano Leader that 202.124.73.67 speaks of has never bothered to interview the founder of SIST nor any of the board members. Neither have they interviewed a single SIST employee. This article from 2004 is the only non-slanderous article ever printed in Shawano Leader. Since that time, there has hardly ever been any reference to the school in the news anywhere in the United States. Until there is more information that a WP editor can use regarding the actual school, it is a non-notable topic by every WP standard. The local newspapers have a lot of 'alleged accusations' 'insinuations' etc...none of it proving anything as solid fact backed up with evidence. The slander and lies need to go. Local bias against the Indian immigrant founder of SIST has no place in WP except as a lesson for humanity world-wide that the core mentality of white supremacy still exists.... in the United States. Tax documents prove SIST is a school. Why has there not been any mention of it since then? Obviously something is amiss in Shawano. Kerev HaEmet (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    — Kerev HaEmet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Just for everyone's information, all of the Shawano Leader articles have been written by a reporter named Tim Ryan. Here is the link to an article about this reporter. In the article, he is pictured 3 times flicking off a previous SIST board member in the Shawano Courtroom and outside the Courthouse. With that kind of documented evidence, he is obviously not an unbiased reporter. Shawano Leader should not even be used as toilet paper, let alone an unbised reference. Kerev HaEmet (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable topic Digging deeper into the history of SIST you will find that this page is missing a large portion of factual evidence. I personally believe that it is slanderous and must be taken down. I am sure that when I say this I am speaking for not only my self but the employees of SIST, And the students that are enrolled in the school as well. Fearless Mountain Goat (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Fearless Mountain Goat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Non-notable topic I personally believe that this is slanderous and must be taken down. I am only seeing one side of the story, therefore i would like to see that no more slander is being done to the school and its employees. Jailbird30 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Jailbird30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete non-notable topic - Lack of creditable sources. For the most part the news has been very much against this organization and almost never use facts or documented facts in their stories. It seams the author takes an undocumented story and use it for creditable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightforright (talk • contribs) 23:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Fightforright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment As anyone would notice, there are several "deletes" above that are accounts or IPs with few edits. And as anyone would notice, there is a {{not a ballot}} note at the top of the page. I am not saying that accounts with few edits should be excluded from participation here. But the real problem is that this article is being judged negatively based on the way it appeared when it was initially proposed for deletion, which is radically different from the originial version, and based on the fact it has been edited by many SPAs. The nom even stated inaccurately that it was created by an SPA. The reality is that I, a veteran editor, created the article after seeing a segment about it on the news, and this is my original version. It contained plenty of sources, enough to meet the general notability guideline. Many of those links have rotted since, but LINKROT is not a reason for deletion. I have not really paid much attention to editing of this article since then, and I have actually edited Wikipedia very little in the past several months. Shaliya waya (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I wrote earlier (over a week ago), "Got a diff for where I said anything at all about the creator of the article?" You haven't yet come up with that diff, but you still continue to make the same false accusation about me. Please stop.

    Which makes me wonder: why do you think the {{spa}} editors are !voting for deletion based on the way the article looked at the time I nominated it? I think that that's highly unlikely myself, as those accounts weren't even created then. Got any basis for this new accusation?

    And while I'm thinking about it… no, you aren't the only one who's noticed a slew of SPAs; that's why User:7 added the {{not a ballot}} template, and why I've been adding {{spa}} tags after certain !votes. I'm sure that the closing admin will give them all the weight they're due; no more, and no less.

    And lastly—didja notice that I didn't add the {{spa}} tag to your !vote? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not convinced by that "original version" of the article, which is largely concerned with a WP:SINGLEEVENT that doesn't seem to have resulted in criminal charges. And "Neighbors reported that the house had always appeared dark at night" doesn't seem to contribute to notability in any way. -- 202.124.74.221 (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete 'non-notable topic' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serina2004 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Serina2004 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
delete 'non-notable topic' Lack of credible resources. The media and news need to stop bringing out one side of the story...if you can even call what they say one side of the story. This is a biased page and a lot of information is skipped over. If there is to be a page about SIST it needs to have the correct information. Enough of the slandering and false accusations against SIST. "12:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)~" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacetous (talk • contribs)
— Peacetous (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
delete. non-notable topic. there are no credible sources cited in this article and most of the information is completely missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceandtranquility (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Peaceandtranquility (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Shocking. Wait - no it's not. From everything I've read, this group is extremely agressive at trying to hide negative information, attack critics and exhibits some really odd behavior. Allegations of a "hit list" from the group even hit the CBS Evening News (note that no charges were filed by the FBI after the investigation). I've given up trying to trace through the maze of bankruptcy filings for them. Ravensfire (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put me down as also unshocked (although unlike Ravensfire, I don't think the article is worth keeping). Now that they've been confirmed, I've indented and struck the !votes of the socks. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am an SPA, who's sole purpose was to edit-and add-to this page, awhile back. At first, I painted it with my views, but then added the opposition's (those who are stating that this is a business and a legitimate school, only). Despite the fact that it would be great (in my opinion) to have a site up for this group, either under this name or another, my view now is that unless it's locked down and managed by expert editors, let's not bother with it. For those who cannot find much on this group, go to rickross.com and type "rama behera" in the search field. I can add refs for many articles from the late 70's and early 80's to that list. This is one side of the story. You've heard plenty from the other--as noted above. There will *always* be this continuous battle. It doesn't help that the individual in charge has changed his name over the years, and that the business is not the same name as the religious group. They have a point--the business is different from the religion--except, the religious members run or work in the businesses that are supposed to be raising money for the school supposedly, and the man in charge, Behera/Samanta Roy/Cohen manages all of it. It's a real-life circle-circle intersection. Religion--businesses--school. As to being notable or not--it's not such a big deal to some, but to others it is--and who gets to "win"? Read my comments on the "talk page" about this issue. Let me know if you want what I have. Junipersophie (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)junipersophie[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samanta_Institute_of_Science_and_Technology&oldid=1255418391"