Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maharishi Group

:{{la|Maharishi Group}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maharishi_Group Stats])

:({{Find sources|Maharishi Group}})

• Delete (nominator) --Does not meet notabilty requirements of WP:CORP — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Delete --This article has multiple issues and has been discussed at length on the talk page with the end result being a consensus for deletion.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maharishi_Group#Notability] The crux of the problem is that the Financial Express is the only secondary source that uses the term and only in passing in a single sentence. The article was built on claims made at the web sites of so called subsidiary companies. For this reason the article does not meet any of the criteria of WP:CORP and should be removed as it is unreliable and misleading for our readers. A thorough analysis of the sources is given [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maharishi_Group#Coatrack_and_other_issues here] on the talk page. And a discussion of its non-notability can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maharishi_Group#Notability here].-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete -- This term is sometimes used in a generic sense meaning organizations related to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, with the g lower case. But that usage is subsumed under the article Transcendental Meditation movement. The proper noun Maharishi Group, which is claimed to be an $800 million conglomerate, seems to be nothing more than hype on websites of companies such as Maharishi Solar to make them sound more impressive. I have been unable to find any evidence that there's a corporate entity named Maharishi Group. TimidGuy (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, for reasons of apparent non-existence of the entity described by the article - the 'subject' is WP:OR and conjecture. Having looked into this matter in some depth, it is apparent that there almost certainly is (or at least was) a commercial concern of some type entitled 'The Maharishi Group', as referred to in India's Financial Express. However, much of the article seems instead to be referring to entities of some kind for which no source can be found linking it to that particular commercial concern - or indeed to anything beyond occasional vague references to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or to Transcendental Meditation movement at best, and nothing more than a name with 'Maharishi' in it at worst - and this is even after removing nonsensical claims that the entire 'Group' was a "Non-profit conglomerate" based on a source that mentioned a 'Maharishi Group Venture... non-profit benevolent society' of some kind in passing - with no indication whatsoever of any connection to any other entity. The crux of the problem becomes clear in the article lede, which states that "Maharishi Group [is] also called Maharishi group, Maharishi Group Venture, Maharishi Group of Companies and TM organization", but fails entirely to source this statement. The connection between the various entities seems to be based on pure WP:OR, almost certainly larded with a generous layer of POV-pushing by followers of the late Maharishi. There is nothing cited to demonstrate that the entity described in the article exists as an entity, rather than as something cobbled together for Wikipedia by Google miners. As for the actual Indian commercial concern entitled 'The Maharishi Group', there seems to be little to indicate that it would meet WP:GNG guidelines, and there certainly aren't sufficient either in the article, or easily locatable on the web, to construct an article on it at present. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Merge ATG is 100% wrong on the existence of the Maharishi Group, and TimidGuy arguments about it not being a separate corporate entity are irrelevant. There is no question that the "Maharishi Group" exists as a consolidated group. I addressed this on the talk page 2 1/2 years ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maharishi_Group#Corporate_entity], when TimidGuy was inexplicably arguing that it didn't exist, in the face of sourced representations by the TM Organization itself about the existence and extent of the Maharishi Group. Apart from those self-promotional sources, the India Tax Court found that The Maharishi Institute of Creative Intelligence, one of the constituent members of the Maharishi Group, could retain its nonprofit status because its surplus (i.e profits) were being applied to construction of an office building to be used by various nonprofit organizations that were all members of the Maharishi Group and which worked together to advance the objectives of the consolidated group.[http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/303598/] That being said, there are few third-party sources which reference the Maharishi Group, and those are largely in passing rather than having any substantive coverage. I don't think that there is sufficient substantive third-party secondary sources to support a separate stand-alone article on the subject. The material that is properly sourced here can and should be merged into the Transcendental Meditation movement article and this title redirected there. Fladrif (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

:*Comment: Regarding the [http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/303598/ tax document] called Director Of Income Tax vs Maharishi Institute Of Creative (25 October, 2004) mentioned in the comments above. This primary source, only mentions the Maharishi Group in passing and provides no conclusive evidence that the Maharishi Group exists except in the minds and records of the assessee/defendant: Maharishi Institute of Creative. (See Tax Doc excerpts below):

:#"He, therefore, required the assessee-society to offer its explanation in the matter and in reply, it was submitted on its behalf that the income earned during the year under consideration was, inter alia, applied for the construction of building which was allowed to be used by other societies of the same Maharishi Group for their charitable activities.

:#"In this regard, it is observed that there were number of societies formed broadly with the same aims and objects belonging to the same 'Maharishi' Group [sic] and in the Managing Committee Meeting of the assessee-society held on 4-1-1990, it was decided to work in cooperation with the said societies for achieving such common aims and objects and even the resolution to that effect was passed in the said Meeting as is evident from the extract of Minutes of the said Meeting placed at page No. 40 of the assessee's paper book."

:*(continued) And if it does exists where are the secondary sources that satisfy WP:CORP and give us info about this alleged company? They don't appear to exist. I've searched Google News/Archives, High Beam, Credo and Questia for substantive sources on this $700 million multi-national corporation and come up empty. Almost every source in the article is about other companies alleged to be subsidiaries. — Keithbob • Talk • 18:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

:*Comment. As Kiethbob says, we don't base article content on our own interpretations of primary sources - this has been one of the failings of this article, and should never have been allowed to happen. If there is anything which can be properly sourced to have a direct formal relationship with the TM movement, and it meets wp:weight requirements, it can be included in the TM article. So far, there is nothing in any of the sources for the article being discussed here that states that 'The Maharishi Group' as referred to by the Financial Express has any formal connection with the TM movement at all - and WP:OR based on documents of unknown reliability [http://www.indiankanoon.org/disclaimer.html] certainly won't change this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

:::The Maharishi Group was hardly mentioned in passing; the relationship of the Maharishi Institute of Creative Intelligence to the group was the basis of the decision. The disclaimer ATG cites has nothing to do with the authenticity or reliability of the Tax Court decision. Forgive me if I wonder if the sudden urge to purge any mention of the Maharishi Group from Wikipedia has anything to do with recent press reports from India that the self-same Maharishi Group and Maharishi Institute of Creative Intelligence is currently embroiled in litigation and governmental investigations of alleged widespread fraud, forgery, malfeasance and misconduct involving the financial dealings of various Maharishi Group entities and their directors and officers, as the Maharishi's nephews and others fight over assets of the Group, mostly vast real estate holdings into which fundraising proceeds have been poured, while the charities themselves have fallen into complete disarray according to the reports.[http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/maharishi-mahesh-yogi-rs-60000-crore-fortune/1/201925.html][http://dailypioneer.com/nation/37262-members-breach-yogi-trusts-with-land-deal.html] Fladrif (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

:::*Comment: TimidGuy has challenged the validity of the Maharishi Group article since April 2010 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maharishi_Group] He was met with resistance from the article's creator, Will BeBack, who in Feb 2012 was admonished, topic banned and WP banned for his misbehaviors including the "harassment/outing" of TimidGuy. I mention this because TimidGuy may have have felt reluctant to press the issue with the very editor who was harassing him. In any case, more recently I have had the opportunity to lay bare the sources on the talk page and expose the article as baseless and out of compliance with WP standards. AfD is a standard procedure for discussing the merit of a given article's content. Assuming bad faith and criticizing editors who are here in good faith to improve WP and uphold its policies is not helpful to the process. Let's see what the rest of the community has to say.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

::::Yet again we are getting lumbered with WP:OR here. Fladrif cites two articles, one of which makes no mention of any 'Maharishi Group' at all, while the other uses the phrase once, without making its meaning clear. What does either of them usefully tell us in regard to the fundamental question posed: what exactly is 'The Maharishi Group'? Is it a corporation, as the Financial Express reports suggest? Or is this instead just a loose term for 'assets owned by (factions of) the late Maharishi's followers', as the India Today article that Fladrif cites seems to be suggesting? If it is the latter, it clearly doesn't merit a stand-alone article. Or at least, it doesn't merit an article that claims that it is some sort of corporation. We need sources that actually describe the group as an entity in depth, in order to justify the article - that is how WP:notability (organizations and companies) is established. We can't go around collecting sources about different entities, and lumping them all together as 'a group', unless we have a source that explicitly states that they are part of the same group. As for the ridiculous insinuations, I'll treat them with the contempt they deserve. Just plain stupid, and unworthy of further response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - My initial reaction was easily passes WP:GNG due to a search bring up more than 100 news articles on "Maharishi group", the earliest being [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22MAHARISHI+IN+MANILA+TRIGGERS+CONTROVERSY%22&oq=%22MAHARISHI+IN+MANILA+TRIGGERS+CONTROVERSY%22&gs_l=hp.3...11469.12688.1.12797.3.3.0.0.0.0.344.438.1j3-1.2.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.EU6pk-I6sn8&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=760d5217a93fe50&bpcl=35277026&biw=1280&bih=828 Maharishi In Manila Triggers Controversy] (October 8, 1984) (referring to The maharishi's group) and [http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1993_1117505 Houston Chronicle March 17, 1993] (referring to a second group led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as operating the Maharishi Heaven on Earth Development, referring to the Maharishi group in the sense of all member of the Maharishi group, and a third group led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as operating the World Plan Executive Council. Each of these three entites could be the Maharishi Group but it is not clear which Maharishi Group would be the topic of the present article). Then I read TimidGuy's comment above and, sure enough, there are many sources for Maharishi group (lowercase "g"). Looking at the Maharishi Group (uppercase "G"), India Today, pg. 74, June 22, 1998, Spiritual Channel, by Namrata Joshi reads, "The country's first spiritual channel, Maharishi Channel, comes from Mahesh Yogi's Maharishi Group." Other sources note things like "The building has been largely vacant since the Maharishi group bought it from Marquette for $600,000 in 1994." and "The Maharishi group bought the hotel for $1.5 million in March 1995." and "The Maharishi group has its own incorporated city in Iowa called Vedic City." and "This is despite assurances from the Maharishi Group, the current owners of the plantation company that money would be given back to the investors". A recent article reads, "In January, the Srivastava brothers petitioned the Delhi High Court to win a stay on sales of land owned by various societies formed by the Maharishi Group."[http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/maharishi-mahesh-yogi-rs-60000-crore-fortune/1/201925.html] Then I looked at the scope of the topic of the article. The article lead reads, "The Maharishi Group also called Maharishi group, "Maharishi Group Venture, Maharishi Group of Companies and TM organization was established by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the 1960s."
  Wikipedia articles are limited to one main topic. This article seems to have multiple main topics. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There appears to be a financial fluidity between the entities named in the article, to where some of them may, at times be discrete entities, and, at other times, be merely an entity having two or more names. A reason for this appears to be that the"Maharishi Group" does not exist as a consolidated group of discrete entities. There is insufficient reliable source information for a stand alone article on such a topic. As a result, even if Wikipedia editors tried with care and though to decide what is and is not part of the topic per Wikipedia's core policies, they would be unable to without original research because what is and is not include in the scope of the article is subjective rather than objective. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I think this is much more in the nature of adding 2+2 than original research. Writing an article about the largest relevant business grouping is our usual practice, and I do not think this different, except perhaps that the sponsorship is by a movement whose supporters have indeed made attempts to write an excessive number of little articles on Wikipedia. However, the reaction of putting everything to do with TM into one big article is excessive; this article is a reasonable level of aggregation. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Sorry, but that makes no sense - we don't have any source whatsoever that asserts that there is a business grouping, never mind one that says that it is called 'The Maharishi Group'. We don't have sources that say anyone is 'sponsoring' anyone. We don't even have sources that state that there is any explicit connection between 'The Maharishi Group' (the company described in the Financial Express) and the TM movement. The whole thing is unsourced conjecture... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment --Thank you DGG for your participation. Regarding your comment: "a movement whose supporters have indeed made attempts to write an excessive number of little articles on Wikipedia. However, the reaction of putting everything to do with TM into one big article is excessive; this article is a reasonable level of aggregation". I think there is a misunderstanding and I'd like to give the facts, if I may....... The TM navigation template contains 45 articles (the TM category contains 80+ articles) so we both agree that there are too many articles on the TM topic. Now... out of those 45 articles in the template, 29% of them (13 articles) were created by Will Beback including the Maharishi Group article currently under discussion. Out of the 13 articles created by Will Beback five of them have been cited by various editors (including myself) as being coatracks and/or lacking in notability for a stand alone article: Maharishi Group, Maharishi Heaven on Earth Development Corp, Golden Domes, MERU, Holland, Neil Paterson (politician). So to summarize, Will Beback (guess you could call him a TM supporter if you want to) was the major contributor to the creation of "an excessive number of little articles" and others (like myself) have been encouraging "reasonable aggregation".[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Transcendental_Meditation#Thoughts_on_managing_the_scope_of_the_topic see discussion here] So we are in agreement on the goal and now clear on how the current array of articles was created. Disclaimer: I have created 3 articles in the TM nav template: Maharishi Effect (a fork), Nancy Lonsdorf and Transcendence (book). Best wishes,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per my earlier comments on the MG talk page, and given the weakness of the sources to both identify and describe something called Maharishi Group. I am also surprised by DGG's statement above both in attempting to isolate and label a whole group of editors, fundamentally an incivility, and second here, "have indeed made attempts to write an excessive number of little articles on Wikipedia." Maybe this is worth checking to see who has created a lot of little articles related to TM on Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2012 (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.