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

I'm a huge newbie at this whole system, but I have attempted to somewhat remove bias from the last revision that I did and make it more encyclopedic. I realize that it is by no means thorough or complete--help is needed for that. I was born into the group so I fully acknowledge my bias. I would consider myself to be a witness to something that extends beyond a private enterprise, or personal opinion. This is a topic of discussion and analysis in the education system--especially high school students within the vicinity of the Green Bay area,as well as at some Universities and Colleges. Grad students have used the topic for their thesis papers, and a professor or two for research--including Dr. Stephen Kent at the University of Alberta, Calgary.

Since the group's supporters are professing that it is a business, with no ties to religion, but they are still being persecuted and want their voices to be heard, I can imagine they want to keep the page up as well. If there is any argument, then Wikipedia editors could respond with the fact that they are now being represented. I think that there should be other points of view, including those that I completely disagree, so I am not against having both, or multiple views presented. It's for the betterment of spreading knowledge to those who are apart from any emotional or personal connection to the topic. It affects a lot of people in a myriad of ways, and I feel that it deserves to stay up.

Some questions: Can multiple articles and local and national broadcasts talking about the topic prove it to be worthy of being addressed in Wikipedia? If need be, I can provide references to articles from the late 70's/early 80's, as they are kept at various libraries. I've already done the research. I'm talking over one hundred, at least.

Is there a way to address it with both points of view on one page, with a third party regulating it? Or, to have two separate pages with links to the opposing page? Junipersophie (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Juniper Sophie[reply]

Removed my comments here due to the accusations against me. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying, Dori. This just shows one of the best reasons for the controversy surrounding this group: they attack whomever they feel like, whoever they think has any potential bias against them, rather vehemently. No one is immune. Not even a well-intentioned Wikipedia editor. You have now joined a long line/large group of people who have been personally attacked by them, starting in the 1970's. I advocate for shutting down the page at this point.Junipersophie (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Junipersophie[reply]

Is there anything useful from the versions that I did and that others added/altered that could be added to the current changes: (cur | prev) 22:25, 27 June 2011‎ Yobot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,009 bytes) (+74)‎ . . (WP:CHECKWIKI error 61 fixes + general fixes (BRFA 16), added orphan tag using AWB (7778)) Also, can references from articles in the past be added, which are not online? Thanks for making the changes. Junipersophie (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Junipersophie[reply]

I would like to counter argue the points about notability, importance, or necessity of this article, with the fact that despite the lack of awareness of certain editors, this is still an important issue in the lives of a large number of people. Namely, the whole town of Shawano, WI, the 120+ "members" of S.I.S.T., the alleged 150+ "ex-members" of the same, their families, friends, communities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN, and so on. Someone asked if it is worth it just for 150 people. I state that this number, first of all, is inaccurate, and second, that even if this number was accurate in some vacuum, it's still important. Junipersophie (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Junipersophie[reply]

Good question about using old articles as sources. There's nothing that prevents it, so long as you've got enough information for a full cite to that source. Basically, the cite needs to have enough information that someone else can take that info and locate the reference (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). For a newspaper, that generally means you need the article name, author, date, section and page, name of the paper and the publisher. That's about it. Sources don't have to be on-line, just be verifiable and from a reliable source. That last part is key - I've chopped a lot of information and sources from the article because the source was unreliable. Also, ANYTHING about a living person MUST be sourced (see WP:BLP). I'll go look at the changes you made back in 2011 to see if there's anything. I'm also looking at the WSAW articles about the group, plus some searches I'm doing. I've googled "Yehud-Monosson USA, Inc.", which is the name on the bankruptcy, and there's some ... interesting ... results.

Notability, honestly, I'm not sure. For Wikipedia, it's not really about how many people it affects, but the extent of the coverage. An event might affect a handful of people but because the coverage is widespread, it meets the criteria. Take a look at WP:ORG, that's the criteria for determining notability of this group. That should give you some idea of what's needed to prove notability. Remember the bankruptcy case is part of this, so non-local coverage of it (and the various events around it) can also help show notability. Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This organization goes under a number of corporate entities, but in court docs, I believe many connect themselves as subsidiaries to S.I.S.T. Interestingly, despite the fact that they say they are a secular "organization," there are claims of religious persecution to the head of the org. Anyway, the newspapers: I have full references for ones not online. When I find some time (full-time student), I'll see what I can do. I don't know how to create subject headings, but if there is a way to include one about "Deprogrammings" or early history, then I can include the newspaper references under that. There will be a big rebuttal, I expect, since the organization refuses to acknowledge any existence of a historically religious connection to the Institute. I understand their POV because the founding of the Institute can be construed as a separate business event. However, it's a spawn of the original. The Board, the President, CEO, attorneys, etc... have been members of the religious group since the 70's and 80's. I realize there is little-to-no proof beyond witness testimony, but we may be able to remedy some of that with these newspapers, and possible court testimony. Junipersophie (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Junipersophie[reply]

I will see about getting something (including permission) from a professor who did some work on this topic, as well as any other expert/scholarly work. Junipersophie (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Junipersophie[reply]

The article cannot be a slanted POV either. It has to have substance and fact. Allegations and leading the reader into a certain mindset that is not based off clear evidence is not allowed, as I understand the rules. Ravensfire, please see the other page, I can't figure out how to get back there from here. I'm new at all this. Thanks. Kerev HaEmet (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it's great to have third-party help--like Ravensfire's. Thanks for whatever help you can provide as well. At this time, the page is still pretty slanted. Junipersophie (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Junipersophie[reply]