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 redirected by nom. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hipurnias[edit]

Hipurnias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Basically as far as I can tell there have been no references anywhere to this supposed people since the 1911 Britannica. I tried to search under similar spellings in google and came up empty-handed. I have recently been improving a lot of the articles related to indigenous people in Brazil, and this is unusual, since normally even a 100-person group will turn up some anthropological materials. I did turn up one reference in jstor to an 1895 article listing groups that said something about a "warlike and formidable" cannibal tribe called the Hipurinas (notice- not quite the same spelling). Googling hipurina reveals (thanks to Babelfish) that "hipurina" is a Tupi word for maiden, flower, or fruit. So basically I think that this was either a wrong name in 1911 (my money is here) or has since become obsolete. Mangostar (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solved the mystery! The real name is Ipurina. The 1910 updated version of the 1895 article on the "Hipurinas" is basically the same thing verbatim as Britannica, so the "Hipurnia" in Britannica seems to have been a misspelling of that. Googling the linguist mentioned in the 1910 article reveals that he actually wrote a grammar for the "Ipurina". (Which pulls up tons of google sources.) It's just like telephone, huh? Mangostar (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Ipurina are evidently better known as the Apurinã, whose language already has a WP article! Mangostar (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to Apurinã, then? --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 14 December 2007 (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.

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. Singularity 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Improvement Method[edit]

Quantum Improvement Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was created by the main proponent of the method, with few subsequent edits. Non-notable (133 Google results for "Quantum Improvement Method"). Unverifiable, as Mark Profitt's blog (only given reference) does not seem to mention the method by name. Sho Uemura (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable, non-notable, neologism. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Neologism. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Jejune. Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No Google Scholar hits. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2007 (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.

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. Kafziel ^Talk 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engin Varol[edit]

Engin Varol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was created by the subject's son with no understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines or original research policy. I can't find any indication of notability from any English sources, but the article does seem to assert notability in a reasonable way which is why I didn't speedy delete it myself. The article on the Turkish Wikipedia (also written by his son) is brand-new as well and lists no sources. Kafziel ^Talk 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Parsing the text, I see that a) he has a job and b) other famous people who held that job have influenced him. I see NO actually assertions of significance or notability here... Thus speedy A7. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? You're right. The claims of notability are thin enough for a speedy. Done. Kafziel ^Talk 19:51, 14 December 2007 (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.

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 Keep. — Scientizzle 21:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Belmain[edit]

Jean Belmain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A biography of an non-notable person. Marlith ^T/C 03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Edward VI of England. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is limited information about him online but he was considered a humanist scholar and he was later Bishop of Poitiers, and believed to have started construction of Poitiers Cathedral.--Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, wrong century. Let me see what else I've got. Never research while a cat is destroying something to get your attention. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ISBN 0754604691 page 41? Uncle G (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs expansion, but print sources seem to clearly exist. I see no reason to delete when sources exist. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[5] here's one. [6] and another. [7] and another. Some of these are VERY old (19th century even) texts, but there is no time limit on notability. There are sources, therefore he is likely notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: existence of sources demostrating notability has been shown, and that's sufficient. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks to meet WP:BIO Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:00, 14 December 2007 (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.

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 g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vallarta Adventures[edit]

Vallarta Adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be in violation of WP:SPAM SimpleParadox 19:11, 14 December 2007 (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.

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. Singularity 05:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Wing (ship)[edit]

Dragon Wing (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article was merged following a first AfD, but later turned into a kind of disambiguation page about fictional ships, none of which seems notable. Per MOS:DAB, disambiguation pages serve to disambiguate articles. No article about a ship named "Dragon Wing" exists however, and that's for a reason. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't disambiguate for articles that don't themselves exist. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. None of these ships is likely to have a page on it, so the dab serves no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jayron32. As for the mentions, the first two are adequately covered by Dragon Wing, which is the more likely search term anyway, and the last barely gets a mention in Eldest, which suggests it is unimportant enough to ignore. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Ten Pound Hammer. Malinaccier (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2007 (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.

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 Keep. CitiCat ^♫ 05:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dingle CBS[edit]

Dingle CBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced stub article on a school which closed this summer, now a regular vandalism target. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I just cleaned this page up from about 2 months worth of vandal edits. Some notability is claimed, however I'm not sure it's enough for inclusion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and protect I have to take back my previous statement, the notable, while open was notable, especially for such a long time and the athletes that came out of the school. I will suggest however if the article is kept, that this page be fully protected as it has been a playground for vandals. Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That the school closed does not make it suddenly unnotable. Notability does not expire. Its a stubby article, but this appears to be a school with a long history; there is probably information out there to expand this article and establish notability. Vandalism may require protection, but being a vandalism target is NOT a valid reason for deletion.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. None of being a stub article, having closed or being a vandalism target are reasons for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2007 (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.

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 keep. Singularity 20:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Baumgardner[edit]

John Baumgardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an obscure scientist who is not notable. He, however, happens to be a creationist and that's probably why someone thought to write an article on him. WP:BIO and WP:PROF need to be looked at in reference to this person. I note that there has been one mainstream publication on him in US News and World Report. Does that satisfy notability? I'm pretty sure it doesn't as US News and World Reports has also done an article on one of my academic advisors and they would never pass the notability gambit at Wikipedia for inclusion. If Baumgardner was not a creationist he would not be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, therefore to judge Baumgarder to be notable simply because he is a creationist seems to me to be pandering toward biasing Wikipedia in favor of coverage of creationists. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT which may be violated since giving this guy his own article lends him more weight and notoriety to his ideas (which are obviously outside the mainstream) than those of other run-of-the-mill geophysicists. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You don't have to agree with either his politics or his science (I don't agree with either) to note that he has been the subject of independent articles in reliable sources (US News and World Reports is cited directly by the article, for example. The New York Times calls him an "authority.": [8]. Even journals that specifically refute creationism have written about him: [9] Creation science may be bunk, but by the Wikipedia definition of notability (OTHER reliable sources have covered the subject), he is notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fairly out-of-the-way citations: neither of the articles are actually about Baumgardner. As such they really do not establish notability. In the New York Times citation, Baumgardner is only mentioned in passing in a paraphrased quote. Doesn't get much more obscure than that. I hope you'll agree that just because someone is mentioned in the New York Times, that doesn't mean they are notable. Likewise the Iol source simply quotes a Baumgardner paper at the very end of the article for what seems to be mostly effect. If being mentioned in the New York Times isn't criteria for notability, how is being quoted in the much less notable IOL news of South Africa? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is notable, as he appears to be a vocal and controversial figure in the creationist debate. He has a (highly POV) article on Creationwiki, and he has been credited as having extensive knowledge on the subject, as indicated by his repeated use as a source by the mainstream and creationist media. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Baumgardner apears to be a notable figure in the creationist debate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's put it this way,he is a notable geologist among creationists. As such, he is frequently quoted by them, and better that people find an article here making it clear where he stands. They can then interpret it as they think appropriate. It's satisfying to pretend the opponents of rational science are not important, but that doesnt make them go away. DGG (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Although I agree with DGG's reasoning, I wonder whether this person would still be considered notable if he would be a mainstream scientist. Just being a flat-earther doesn't make someone automatically notable, I think. But then, I'm from Europe and fortunately we don't have to deal with this kind of muddled thinking much over here. --Crusio (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• thought(ec) (with much envy of Crusio's intellectual environment) he probably would not be considered notable if he were a mainstream scientist. I think DGG's logic is along the lines that no one would run to wikipedia to look up a mainstream analog to Baumgardner, but because of his relatively prominent role in fringe theories, it is quite likely that someone will look up Baumgardner here, and that makes it worthwhile to have an informative article on him. As long as the article itself is NPOV about endorsing his beliefs, it isn't a violation of NPOV to have a lower bar for notability for creationist "scientists" than honest-to-snot mainstream ones. (*disclaimer: DGG might well believe that a mainstream analog *is* notable, but I take the liberty of misrepresenting his larger views this to highlight the point I thiink he's making here). Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly the point I was making. I hadn't yet analyzed his notability as a geologist in the ordinary sense. But I'm looking now at his CV [10], and I see he has two papers in Nature, one in Science, one in PhilTrans, and a number in impt. specialized journals--all the way from 1983 to 2003 at least. So his conventional work does seem to be taken seriously by peer-reviewers. In fairness, this should be added to the article, because it does affect the way people would think of him. People sometimes get a PhD and then do nothing else or go in non-science directions, but he has actually continued to publish very respectable conventional work. (I will admit, I did not expect to find as much as this. I've added to the article the citation counts for the top 3 of his 20 peer-reviewed conventional papers: 89, 75, and 65.) I don't know the standards in geology, but this would be at least borderline notability as a conventional scientist. There are precedents of scientists with both accepted good work and also really strange views on their subject, like one of my former teachers, Peter Duesberg. DGG (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am in total agreement with Crusio's sentiments, but unfortunately pseudo-scientists are very notable and influential in the most powerful country in the world, as is evident from this week's discussions in Bali. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per the above arguments, I am convinced. --Crusio (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking it up he is notable in this "field." Although I'd like to add that the America-bashing seems to be "piling on" a bit too much. Europe has its pseudoscientists too, some quite notable, they just go in different directions. There are a great many notable European pseudoscientists like [[Erich von Dänikenl], Anthroposophists (largely European), and List of Ufologists#Europe should have some other pseudoscientists. Although Giuseppe Sermonti, Maciej Giertych, Per Landgren essentially go creationist.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely! Didn't want to imply that we don't have our share of fringe theorists here, just that we are lucky that creationists are not as influential here as in (certain parts of) the US! --Crusio (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Articles on notable scientists should be kept. ^rossnixon 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability != reliability. He's not notable as a respectable scientist, but he's certainly notable as a fringe theory scientist. Fortunately or not, activists' use of scholarship can render that scholarship (and that scholar) notable. --Lquilter (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2007 (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.

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. Kurykh 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Labus[edit]

John Labus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possibly a hoax, as I could not find any reliable sources to indicate that any of the information in this article is true, which means at the very least it seems to violate WP:V. Google results turn up Wiki mirrors and, given the nature of his fame, it's not unreasonable to assume that Google should come up with some relevant results. The tone in which the article this article is written doesn't quell my suspicious that this is a hoax either.In addition, even if this were a real person, I question whether he would be notable if one took out all the POV stuff about him; but I'll need to see the sources before I can judge that. Cheers, CP 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely cleaned up by User:Shunpiker and apparentely not a hoax as per AlasdairGreen27 but, as pointed out by Shunpiker, there's still no notability asserted here, so I still think this should be deleted, albeit for different reasons now. Cheers, CP 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning towards Weak delete. It's not a hoax, despite all the ridiculous hyperbole (likely he wrote it himself). This is him: [11]. He's "Morning Reporter/Anchor 5am - 10am" at a radio station in Houston. Normally, I'd say speedy delete about any article that ends "That is the God's facts right there" on grounds of grammatical incompetence and as a point of principle regarding an encyclopaedia. I don't know, though. I'm not in the US, so I don't know how notable this guy is there. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject writes a blog for the radio station, and reports and anchors morning news. No mention of him on the schedule or rest of site. Information on site agrees with article, so not a hoax. Apparently nonnotable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no real assertion of notability. Terraxos (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2007 (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.

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 Keep, nominator has stated withdrawal per this diff on my talk page, and has asked me to close the nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Pakistan[edit]

Cinema of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are so many things wrong with this article that I scarcely know where to begin.

• 1) Sections like Cineplex and Zibakhana are written like advertisements.
• 2) Article is full of superlative POV's, eg, Saqib Malik is one of the most critically acclaimed directors in the Pakistani satellite entertainment circles, and his film, which brings together some of Pakistan's best talents, is being much awaited.
• 3) Article is full of original research, contrary to WP:OR
• 4) There are no references at all.
• 5) Weasel words throughout the article.
• 6) It is full of irrelvant asides and littered with red links.
• 7) Very poor English in the article, eg, a popular actress jerked the film industry and broke countless hearts.
• 8) Bad grammar.
• 9) Poor quality.

Tovojolo (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article demands clean-up, but clean-up issues are not deletion issues. I see no reason for Wikipedia not to have an article entitled this (or something like it. Maybe "Cinema in Pakistan" or "Film in Pakistan" would be more standard). However, despite the fact that the article has all of the problems listed above, not ONE of them is a justification for deletion. Fix the article up so it meets standards, don't delete it... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. AfD is not cleanup. Maintenance tags have been applied to the article, so now it just needs some fixing up. I'll see what I can do. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly legitimate subject which just needs improving as an article. There are so many things wrong with the nomination that I scarcely know where to begin. Nick mallory (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (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.

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. Xoloz (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoppes at Blackstone Valley[edit]

Shoppes at Blackstone Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sub-stub-class article on a mall in Massachusetts, does not establish notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom, is not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mall blamed for Traffic nightmare but also holds key say to State road work. RS provided. As an aside question: Do Sub-Stubs need to provide notability ??? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say it's a good idea to assert notability in a stub-class article, to decrease the odds of speedy deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as just another small US mall. Traffic issues with a mall are not notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2007 (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.

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. east.718 at 06:42, December 20, 2007

Crossroads Center (Bellingham)[edit]

Crossroads Center (Bellingham) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Shoppes at Bellingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable malls in Massachusetts, no notability asserted, no sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, just a list of shops (Wikipedia is not a directory). Malinaccier (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - related to a Previous AfD that ended in No Consensus. Same words now as I did in that one. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. More small US malls. Nothing notable about them. Shoppes at Bellingham needs to show why it is notable and that it will probably be built. Given the suggested size, it night have a better chance in the future for notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2007 (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.

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. Kurykh 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Faustinelli[edit]

Roberto Faustinelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability. Mayor of a town with a population of 11k. Fails WP:BIO Rtphokie (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, dramatically short of WP:BIO minimums. (I'm more flexible on mayors than the guideline, but my personal rule is that cities of 100,000 and up have some inherent notability for their executives.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2007 (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.

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. Kurykh 01:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BioSyn[edit]

BioSyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article appears to have no notability, and is just plot repetition from the various stories in the Jurassic Park series, bereft of notability or referencing Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:FICT. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This article just repeats the plot in more topic-related detail. It's already mentioned in the main article, so nothing to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:02, 15 December 2007 (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.

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 The result was speedy delete per the author's request hbdragon88 (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandview Commons[edit]

Grandview Commons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

River Pointe Shopping Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Woods Creek Shopping Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Three non-notable shopping centers in Algonquin, Illinois, none of which meet notability standards. The pages are mostly just listings of the stores in each mall, thus violating WP:NOT#DIR. A search for sources online turned up nothing of value. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of these articles, yeah go ahead and delete them. I created these articles on specific power centers before I realized the "notability" standards for shopping centers on Wikipedia. Most of the important content on these power centers (anchors, square feet, location, etc.) has already been merged into Algonquin, Illinois anyway. Abog (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all three of these would qualify for G7 (author requests deletion) since you're the only significant contributor to all of them (i.e., the only other edits were very minor). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, author requests deletion. Malinaccier (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2007 (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.

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 No consensus, default to Keep. Brief explanation of closure: While the title seems to suggest original research by synthesis, as was pointed out by many participants in the discussion below, the actual article ascribes each of the major interpretations to published secondary sources, and does not attempt to synthesise them into an original view on the part of the article's author; accordingly I did not discount the numerous Keep !votes in this discussion. Walton^One 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey[edit]

Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic original synthesis that might belong on a fansite but does not belong in Wikipedia. Groupthink (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While it is the greatest sci-fi film ever made, this really is fansite material. Intersting read, but certainly doesn't belong here. I'd go so far as to say that this article can serve no purpose... Lugnuts (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete purely original research. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to improve it. It's a badly-written article, but most of it is sourced to reliable sources, not to fansites, and as far as I can tell the summaries are accurate. It certainly is NOT "purely original research". If somebody gave it some TLC it could become a good article. Cop 663 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It certainly IS purely original synthesis, and while 2001: A Space Odyssey is most definitely noteworthy, no amount of TLC is going to make "interpretations of 2001" an encyclopedic topic in-and-of-itself. Groupthink (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by synthesis? Your understanding of it does not seem to tally with WP:SYN. Cop 663 (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  From WP:SYN: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." From the article: "An allegory is a story in which the events are intended to represent some other, underlying meaning. One allegorical interpretation of the film is made by Leonard F. Wheat... An alternative allegory is provided by New Zealand journalist Scott MacLeod... Numerous other theories and interpretations have been put forward by amateur and professional movie scholars and critics alike, with a number of Web sites postulating the meaning behind HAL's behavior and the enigmatic journey into the unknown." Hmm, so Messrs. Wheat and MacLeod (neither of whom merit their own Wikipedia article, BTW) have pontificated on 2001 as allegory, therefore there must be numerous other scholarly opinions. Sounds like A + B = C to me. Groupthink (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's weasel words - "unspecific disclaimers attached to what otherwise would be plain statements of opinion, rather than fact". I agree that it's crap, but a different kind of crap, and one very easy to fix by deleting the sentence in question. Cop 663 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that that sentence by itself contains weasely terminology, but it's also O.S. in the broader context of the article. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Groupthink (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the article's sources confirm, 2001 has been a film that has been subjected to many different interpretations since it first came out 40 years ago, which is what Stanley Kubrick was aiming for. Because the film is so bizarre, it's been the subject of speculation more so than most films. Author's speculation is "original research". However, an author's references to someone else's speculation is not original research. Mandsford (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The article's sources most definitely do NOT confirm this. They confirm two published sources and one self-published website expositing a novel allegorical interpretation of 2001. The citations/references fail to establish that "2001 has been a film that has been subjected to many different interpretations since it first came out 40 years ago, which is what Stanley Kubrick was aiming for. Because the film is so bizarre, it's been the subject of speculation more so than most films." like you assert. Even if that proposition could be substantiated, you'd still need to establish that the article's topic passes notability muster, which it does not (remember, notability is not inherited). Groupthink (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two minutes of research reveals further evidence of the subject's notability:

* Robert Kolker, ed. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey: New Essays (Oxford University Press) - from the blurb: "Almost all students have seen 2001, but virtually none understand its inheritance, its complexities, and certainly not its ironies. The essays in this collection, commissioned from a wide variety of scholars, examine in detail various possible readings of the film and its historical context ... 2001 is, like all of [Kubrick's] films, more than it appears, and it keeps revealing more the more it is seen."

* Michael Chion, Kubrick's Cinematic Odyssey (British Film Institute) - "In this multilayered study, acclaimed critic and theorist of film sound Michel Chion offers some keys to understanding 2001 ... He then conducts a meticulous and subtle analysis of its structure and style, arguing that 2001 is an "absolute film," a unique assemblage of cinema's elements, through which pulses a vision of human existence. "Animals who know they will die, beings lost on earth, forever caught between two species, not animal enough, not cerebral enough.""

And those are just the entire books on the subject. There will be many more academic essays on the subject. This article has great potential despite its currently unprepossessing appearance. Cop 663 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your citations merely further establish that 2001 itself is a seminal film which has inspired scholarly work. They do not establish that interpretations of 2001 is a notable topic, however. Compare this search with this search this search as an illustration of my point. Now, if they're not in there already, the citations you list above would make a great addition to the 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) article, but I'm still not convinced that the topic under discussion has independent, uninherited notability. Groupthink (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article was originally a section of 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) but grew too large and was siphoned off. So if readings of 2001 are worthy of inclusion, there is a practical need for a separate article. BTW, your Google search is picking up interpretations of every film made in the year 2001, so it's pretty meaningless...! :) Cop 663 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I posted the wrong link for the 2001 search and have corrected accordingly, thanks for catching that. As for your first point, I disagree with your reasoning. Formal criticism of 2001 is different from interpretations of 2001 for starters. Even if an "Interpretations of 2001" section is worthy of inclusion in the main article, what's called for is fastidious pruning, not a separate article. There may be enough material to create a separate article, but that's not sufficient to qualify said article's topic for inclusion in WP. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Groupthink (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is well sourced with reliable sources. Issues of synthesis can be edited out. Some of the statements in the article still require references, but I don't see any valid reason to delete the entire article. Rray (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You're contradicting yourself: the article can't be both "well sourced" and "still require references"... but that's beside the point. It's the original synthesis that gives the illusion that this article's topic is notable. Once the synthesis is "edited out" it's obvious that there are multiple valid reasons – notability foremost among them – which justify this article's deletion. Groupthink (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Some statements can have good sources while other statements still require references. I can see why you'd think I'm contradicting myself there, but I think you're also nitpicking, which I don't think should be necessary if the article really qualified for deletion.

But references can be added for statements which don't have good sources, or those statements can be deleted. Deletion isn't necessary or even preferable, although cleanup might be needed. Since entire books have been written on the subject, notability is well established, regardless of any cleanup issues. Rray (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, entire books have been written on the subject of 2001 itself, and I agree that its notability is well-established. However, we're not debating the notability of 2001 here, we're debating the notability of the topic "Interpretations of 2001", which is a fringe topic not sufficiently notable enough to merit its own article. This isn't about cleanup, it's about being encyclopedic. Groupthink (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Per WP:NOT#OR If you look back at the original version it most definitely was WP:OR. Since then editors have been trying to improve it by citing references and deleting sections that can not be verified. The article will always be WP:OR or it will be a complete recreation of Wheat's work both of which should not be here. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a Film School 101 class. Struct (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2007 (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.

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. Kurykh 01:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Middle School[edit]

Martin Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously prodded and deleted twice over. No assertion of notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to district to discourage re-creation as a stub and encourage a richer district article. Non-notable, no assertion of notability, etc. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and, as a school, is notable enough. It is linked from WCPSS and is of similar format to Durant Road Middle School which falls in the exact same category. Look at the earlier revisions; it was changed from a CSD G1 worthy article to a stub to what it is now. The deletions were not a result of non-notibility. Main Author (Chasecarter (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Not every school is notable. Is there a reason why this one is special? Has it received significant coverage from secondary and tertiary sources? If you think that every school mentioned in Wake County Public School System deserves an article, you may be in for a rude awakening. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one has special programs including Magnet School and is part of the Talented and Gifted program which according to the WCPSS directory is one of only two school of the same caliber. I'm new to wikipedia, but I'm sure alot of people in Raleigh would find useful and notable information in this article. Stub it if you want, but why delete it when people could find use in it?(Chasecarter (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
      • These are common programs. "Talented and Gifted", in particular, is more of a meaningless catchphrase used in the WCPSS directory to promote the school. People in Raleigh may indeed find useful information in this stub and even more useful information in the WCPSS directory and other official literature. However Wikipedia is not a directory of local schools, it is not meant to be a comprehensive guide to every school system in every county in every state in every country. Such goals are untenable and should be avoided. As a general interest encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes articles on some schools that meet notability guidelines, namely articles which include mentions of important historic events, a track record of accomplished alumni, or numerous national recognitions. There is nothing about Martin Middle that makes it stand out. The sources used don't meet editorial standards for substantial coverage, they currently include district published information and a listing in a vast online directory. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, this article does not meet the un-offical policy listed below. I guess I thought of Wikipedia as a compendium of all verifiable knowledge, notable to many or just a few. I guess all the people this school has ever graduated, alumni, teachers, district and all the people looking for a middle school for their kids in Raleigh. These people who use wikipedia as their primary source for retreiving information will have to go to another website and will just have to accept that because this is an irrelevant educational institution it does not deserve an article like Ascospora ruborum does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasecarter (talk • contribs) 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look at it this way: if you were one of those people, would you go to the library and crack open a copy of Britannica to find out which local school your kid should attend? Most people use a search engine like google to find info online, Wikipedia results pop up first because the wiki structure lends itself to maximizing pagerank. Wikipedia shouldn't strive to be a primary source of information in fields not covered by general knowledge reference works. Specialized sources like http://www.greatschools.net/ will always be better tools for parents, and with good reason. Frankly, I doubt anyone in Raleigh would really care whether the neighborhood middle school has an article on an online encyclopedia. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Will websites like http://www.greatschools.net/ be better at describing the schools. Well, at least right now they are. You said people use pages like http:/www.google.com/ to find this kind of information. Possibly. And do the people in Raleigh really care if the school is on wikipedia? Probobly not. The information is not all that hard to get, but having it on wikipedia allows simplicity and ease of access to the information rather than spread out between three websites. And wikipedia being very well know and used widley as a source for all kinds of information, I can easily see it as being the first place some people look for information like this. Wikipedia is not any ordinary encyclopedia like Britannica. While I don't really think this article is that important; it is just the idea that an educational institution doesn't deserve a spot on wikipedia if an editor bothers to make it and source it. Alot of other articles are far less notable. This article has potential for expansion from someone who could contribute far more to this than I ever could.Chasecarter (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, this school isn't special. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No substantial notability. If someone is able to write an article with references showing notability, then they can certainly do so, but they should read WP:N and WP:V beforehand. DGG (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect. Nothing notable in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2007 (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.

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. Xoloz (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Mall[edit]

Fairfield Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced stub article on a dead mall in Massachusetts. Only sources found were DeadMalls.com and the Labelscar blog, neither of which can really be considered reliable. The "Chicopee Marketplace" that replaced it doesn't seem to meet notability either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and precedent for notability of malls. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• umm ... per what precedent? please point out the precedent your refering to. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just a dead mall. Malinaccier (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I seem to have found a source, and the reason for its demise. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so add the source. DGG (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was there, just as a link, not as a <ref> ... changed Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as another small US mall. Notability is not established by the reason for closing unless it is really novel and unique. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2007 (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.

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 Merge. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Albanian pedigree of Leka Zogu[edit]

Medieval Albanian pedigree of Leka Zogu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Russian roots of Catherine the Great (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Consensus seems to be that these articles essentially consist of genealogical trivia, which is not notable. (See precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian ancestry of royals of Bulgaria.) It is notable that Leka Zogu is the heir to the Albanian throne, but that only needs a statement in his article saying so; we don't need to provide his entire family history to prove it. Terraxos (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As nominator of the other articles for deletion and also per nominator. Charles 08:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as said by the nominator, clear consensus is emerging that this genealogical stuff is a violation of WP:SYN and nationalistacally oriented.--Aldux (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep King Zog was certainly notable. The ancestry of his wife is interesting, but it would be desirable if a few more of her ancestors could be demonstated to be notable. The Empress Catherine is a slightly different case. She was a princess of a very minor German princely family, who became Empress of Russia. The fact that she had a small admixture of Russian blood in her veins is this of interest. In her case there are a reaonable number of ancestors who were notable (though also a great many apparently NN). Peterkingiron (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nobility of the individual ancestors is irrelevant, the context is what matters. This falls out of the scope of Wikipedia. Charles 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Genealogical trivia; it is sufficient to make a brief reference in the biographical articles about ancestry. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable. Both genealogies (Catherine's Russian and Leka's Albanian) in their own way. Besides, this is so-called second delete nomination, which always smack of, how to express it, sort of obsession, which may be misuse of Wikipedia processes. Let's see, some obsessive deletionist will no doubt soon come and write some retort against my opinion, basically not aimed at proper discussion, but to try to overwhelm anyone. Like bullies tend to do. Yet one problem more is this delete proposals made as bunches, when individual articles would need separate consideration. Shilkanni (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither page has sourcing explaining why the individual's geneaology is notable is notable. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Leka, Crown Prince of Albania and Catherine the Great respectively. Genealogical information is relevant and sourced, but does not merit its own article. Walton^One 17:42, 22 December 2007 (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.

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 close. Given that this is the nominator's first edit, and the phraseology of the nomination parrots several recent nominations of articles about fictional subjects, this is clearly a bad faith nomination. I remind editors not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real life[edit]

Real life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In-universe notability is not established well enough to merit an article on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geese (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 December 2007

• Speedy Keep, as the subject contains - in theory - all in-universe everything. I would think that notability of Life itself would be apparent. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems a perfectly reasonable article to me. Abtract (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (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.

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 G7 (author requeests deletion), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. News Ventures[edit]

U.S._News_Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

U.S. News Ventures does not want an article about them at this time — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanamaZac (talk • contribs) 2007/12/12 16:28:26

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G7. Author requests deletion, and nobody else has edited the article. So tagged. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:47, 14 December 2007 (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.

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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Article has seen a massive improvement, nominator has !voted keep. Woody (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Check NY[edit]

Reality Check NY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NOTABILITY "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines" News search shows two relevant hits, both of which were not available (along with some false positives). Ra2007 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So what research have you done to determine how many and what sources exist, as Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination says for you to do? Uncle G (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Web searches for news articles. Found evidence of two supposedly recent articles or press releases, but both are gone. I don't have access to Nexis. Why do you ask? Ra2007 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because your nomination rationale was non-existent. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I did not see that sub-page in your user space. Anyway, I'll update the rationale. Ra2007 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here are two news reports: Little Falls Times Oneida Dispatch. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only one of the links brings up an article, and that is to a small town newspaper Oneida Disptach. I hardly think this achieves notability requirements. Ra2007 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One link requires a subscription but the point is that the articles are out there, as you found yourself. Given that this is an impatient relisting, your case falls far short of what's needed for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I rewrote the article, removed extraneous information and added more than a dozen citations. This is clearly a notable organization. • Freechild 'sup? 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Freechild (good job Freechild!!!). Ra2007 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2007 (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.

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 keep. Pigman☿ 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great White Brotherhood[edit]

Great White Brotherhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This got speedy deleted, but that was objected to - who knows, perhaps rightly, and so I've restored the page and brought it here. Here are the main problems:

• Largely redundant with Ascended master
• No independent sources. Everything used is published by presses devoted to Theosophy, a small Victorian spiritualist movement that includes this concept.
• Part of a large theosophy walled garden.

In short, notability issues, mixed with redundancy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Related AfD page: A group of articles related to this topic were listed for deletion on the same day as this page was listed, at this link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion.

[The above related-AfD link has been added in the interests of process transparency. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]

• Keep, quite strongly. This is a fairly well known concept from theosophy and turn of the century occultism; the notion of a Great White Brotherhood was shared, not only by theosophists, but also by Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn traditions; A. E. Waite (see his The Hidden Church of the Holy Grail), Aleister Crowley (see his Confessions for many references to the concept), and other associated writers all refer to the Great White Brotherhood in some form; and it fairly clearly inspired the Golden Dawn concept of the Secret Chiefs. For that matter, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Annie Besant, and C. W. Leadbeater are not exactly obscure figures in this path of intellectual history, and the given references are therefore hardly trivial, obscure, or non-notable; sometimes I think I get more than a whiff of rationalist bias. This article needs expansion, not deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The question is whether the subject meets the WP:N standard of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's possible such coverage exists, but the current sources provided in the article do not meet that standard. Fireplace (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And two sections of it are completely redundant with Ascended master, the third is just quotes. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, "Ascended master" and "Great White Brotherhood" are two related but separate notions. GWB is the earlier of the two; "ascended master" is important primarily to the I AM movement and its offshoots, and one issue with the current content of the article appears to be that it relies heavily on those versions. I am going to have to do some digging on this, but I will try to add some different perspectives, assuming it is kept. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly, I have no objection to keeping an improved version, and would be willing to check the procedure for a speedy keep (I don't do AfD much) if there's promises of improvement. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've tried to add some very basic information to the article about the use of the term by non-I AM groups. There is surely more to be said; I will want to see if I can get hands on any books by Joscelyn Godwin or Richard Kieckhefer who discuss all of these matters from an academic perspective. The real problem with the current article seems to be to be merely undue weight to one perspective.

            I suppose I ought to disclose my conflict of interest. I am the bagman for the Great White Brotherhood. -Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's definitely a notable concept used by several unrelated groups as pointed out by Smerdis of Tlön. It is also distinct from Ascended master which concept is pretty much limited to Theosophy and its derivatives. I agree that any duplication should be sorted out, but of the two, Ascended master is the less notable. Curious Blue (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's fair enough, but it would probably help if the article actually dealt with the non-Theosophy parts in any significant way... Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I assume that could be suggested with appropriate templates. I've not familiar enough with the range of templates to choose the right ones for this. Also, I've prefer to keep my opinion in this AfD independent at least until the AfD closes, since I've never edited the article. Curious Blue (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Just trying to figure out what to do with it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I find myself surprised to be agreeing with the nominator here, as with such a long list of references I didn't expect to actually be able to verify the claim that none of the sources are good enough. But I can see they aren't. In most cases, the publisher's name is directly connected to this movement. Most of the rest aren't published at all. The few remaining after that are apparently obscure original publications from the early 20th century. This strikes me as parallel to WP:FICT: these are concepts specific to a world view found in a few written works. There's no outside importance to this, none presented in the article, and no sources that suggest any outside importance exists, and I think that would be needed here. Mangojuice^talk 21:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, unless significant, independent coverage found per WP:N.Fireplace (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ample sources indicating adequate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is related to importance in the real world. While writing and references to these concepts may be limited to a small circle, there are those of us on the outside of that circle who want to know what the heck they are talking about in there. This has significant value because there are several extant religious organizations subscribing to these ideas. It's important that those of us who must deal with them in one way or another have access to this handy summary of their core concepts. Several of these groups are referenced in the article and their existence is readily verifiable. Fat Tommy (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Fat Tommy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Conditional Keep: The article seems to meet WP:N, but it also needs a considerable amount of re-writing to be up to Wikipedia standards. I recommend the editors review WP:OBVIOUS, and also be especially careful in applying NPOV and no original research. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No to any deleting, merging or redirecting

Comment about reliable sources and verifiability - An excellent point was raised by DGG who pointed out that its "just as appropriate to use Theosophical sources as a description as to describe those of any other religion from its works." I agree that is how you get an accurate description of the beliefs of a religion or a philosophical concept. The article on Jehovah's Witnesses is an example how discussions of a religious belief have references to books written by the adherents of that belief. The same is true of the Roman Catholic Church and references to the "self-published" Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church when discussing what Catholic beliefs are. Arguments that we can apply different standards to a religion that has a smaller number of members are unconvincing.

An example of the problem with using an article that someone may erroneously consider a "reliable source" is that the author of that article may know practically nothing about the actual beliefs, and may only be interested in expressing contempt and ridicule of the subject. Fireplace used such an article (which used mocking terms like "two-bit alias" and "one of the kookiest cults") from the Los Angeles Times (See WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Walled_gardens_of_woo) to completely rewrite the I AM Activity article into an article written from a POV that this religious belief is a fraudulent con game, with inaccuracies such as the erroneous statement (from that Los Angeles Times hatchet job) that Guy Ballard claimed to be the reincarnation of Saint Germain or Jesus! Any review of the original sources would quickly reveal how contrary to their beliefs such a statement was. This emphasizes the problem with using outside sources to describe the religious beliefs of a church or religion. Arion (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were factual inaccuracies placed in the "I AM" Activity article by User:Fireplace as of result of his relying on an error-riddled article from Los Angeles Magazine. I just made edits that corrected a number of factual inaccuracies in this Wikipedia article, and gave specific citations to actual source documents to verify those edits. Within one half hour these corrective edits were reverted by Adam Cuerden (a Wikipedia administrator). What kind of explanation can possibly justify such action - again without discussion nor consensus? Arion (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. - I'm not a follower of this religion and have not edited the related articles prior to this AfD. I must voice my concern that a group of articles about a significant minority religion were nominated for deletion ( AfD page for Master Hilarion, et al) following derogatory comments on the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard in a report titled "Walled gardens of woo". What is "woo" intended to convey? It reads like an insult to the believers in this religion, and to the editors who worked on the articles. There are other insults in the above linked AfD and fringe noticeboard report. Insulting characterizations of minority religious beliefs and the work of well-intentioned editors do not belong in Wikipedia.

• Not a "small Victorian spiritualist movenment [sic]": Not "Victorian", it started in the late 1800s and continues today; not one movement, but several; not "spiritualist", Theosophy and its descendants are part of Western esoteric tradition, forerunner of the modern New Age movement which generates a marketplace of billions of dollars a year today. Theosophy also has significant history in India. Google Books search for "Theosophy" shows 9,780 books. How many Google webhits? Over 2,400,000. Google tests have their flaws, but a number that large can't qualify as "small".
• Notable and verifiable: Inconsistent referencing is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. References can be found; Google Books shows 671 hits, and Google Scholar shows 176. Further on notability: here are a few Theosophists... poet WB Yeats; composer Alexander Scriabin; Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Waldorf Schools.
• Not a WP:walled garden: Examples that link to the this page within a few clicks: Philosophy - Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Western mystery tradition, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Alchemy, Mysticism, Humanism, Metaphysics, Philosophy of religion, Esoteric Christianity; and, notable people - Carl Jung, WB Yeats, Alexander Scriabin, Rudolf Steiner, William James, Emanuel Swedenborg, Arthur Schopenhauer. (Some were Theosophists, but not all. The point is they link in a few clicks to the nominated page showing there is no walled garden).
• References: It is not unusual for articles on religion to be based on references published by members of the religion. Examples: Ecumenical council, Eucharist (Catholic Church) , John of Damascus, Full communion ...each have no references not published by Catholic sources. Many religious articles on Wikipedia currently have no references at all. Examples: Divine Liturgy, Council of Ephesus, Veneration, Church Fathers. (No specific meaning in choice of examples, just for illustration). And, the article does already have some non-Theosophy-published references, ie, Bantam Books and Weiser Press. More can be found.
• Summary: The topic is notable and verifiable; not a WP:walled garden; part of a religious philosophy that has influenced Western society and others for over a hundred years. A religion may be small, but that does not mean its information should be excluded from Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Some of my comment has been cross-posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, because that list of closely-related topics was nominated separately from this one. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]

No one is arguing we should delete Theosophy or every Theosophy-related article. That's an awfully broad brush you're painting these debates with. What about this one? Mangojuice^talk 05:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment included both broad brush and fine-point ink-pen, because the nomination did not specifically address only this article, it included inaccurate information about Theosophy. With my fine-point pen, I listed the exact count of Google Books and Google Scholar results on the topic of this article, and showed some non-Theosophy publishers used as references in this article. With my broad brush, I answered the nominators' complaints about the larger topic of Theosophy, and the use of a religions' publications in describing its own religious beliefs, a valid process used by Wikipedia on major religions as well, and his descriptions of Theosophy as a "small Victorian spiritualist movement" and a "walled garden", both of which are simply incorrect.

You mentioned "these debates" rather than "this debate". I assume you're referring to the other AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, to delete every one of the six or seven "Masters of Wisdom" Theosophy articles all at once. While I am not a follower of the religion, it's surprising and disappointing to me to see a nomination for mass deletion of a historically significant religion's equivalent of "Archangels". I don't understand why someone would want to do that. It's completely clear from the quantity and depth of writings about these topics for over a hundred years that they are worthy of a few kilobytes of Wikipedia storage. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the nomination, it is quite specific to this article. So are some of the other arguments being made. Do you have any reliable and clearly independent sources that talk about the "Great White Brotherhood," or is this a minor feature of an obscure belief system no one comments on from the outside? Mangojuice^talk 06:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those questions seem to be a re-phrase of the nomination. I've already answered in detail. I'm not here to have an extended debate defending what I wrote. I did research on this article and the other ones in the related AfD before I entered my comments; the result of that work is the information I posted. It's here for use of the administrator who closes this AfD, and for anyone else who is wants to use it. I'm not an editor of the article and I have no vested interest to defend. I believe the article should be kept for the detailed reasons I listed, which, ultimately, come down to that the article satisfies WP:N and WP:V.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This appears to be a well referenced treatment of a religious subject. —Whig (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a fairly significant concept in theosophy, and the treatment here is at the very least in service to Wikipedia for detailing the history of the usage of the term. The article is in need of some cleanup and organization, but that's not an AfD criteria. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing vote to Keep, but not for the reasons given by various editors above. The typical argument above takes the form "Theosophy is notable, therefore it's concepts are notable" or "theosophical sources can be used to establish notability." Those arguments aren't supported by Wikipedia's policy or guidelines. The relevant criterion is whether the subject has been significantly covered by independent reliable sources. Having looked through some books from third-party, reliable publishers, I'm convinced of the notability here. I'm saddened by the quality of argument, however, both here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, which I think shows a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:Notability. Fireplace (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Others were convinced of the notability here before AfD speedy deletion was made without apparent consultation on the article talk. —Whig (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I favor keeping those articles in Wikipedia since they are references with reliable sources. Is there suddenly a problem with space on Wikipedia? There sure seems to be room for hundreds of articles on characters from mythology, Catholic saints, and gods of Hinduism. Yet, there's no room for a mere handful of articles on Theosophical and Ascended Master teachings? Sage 1225Sage1225 (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Article is well referenced, and I believe the subject is notable. I read a bit of Crowley and related texts years back, and was aware of this order. Sage1225 also makes a good point. It is certainly an encyclopedic subject worthy of inclusion. - Crockspot (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep However, I think that Mahatma, Ascended master, Great White Brotherhood, and Spiritual Hierarchy should all definitely be merged with "Great White Brotherhood" because these are all different names for the same group of alleged beings. The merged article should be called Masters of the Ancient Wisdom which was the original name used in the literature of the Theosophical Society. Keraunos (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Mahatmas are the beings who Madame Blavatsky supposedly encountered personally; the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom are the beings as described in the literature of the Theosophical Society; Alice A. Bailey uses the terms Masters of the Wisdom, Spiritual Hierarchy, Elder Brothers of the Race, and Great White Brotherhood, or simply The Masters, all to refer to the same alleged beings; The term Ascended Master was introduced by Guy Ballard and its use was continued by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, the two major people who are the sources of the Ascended Master Teachings, but they both also sometimes use the term Great White Brotherhood; Benjamin Creme simply uses the term Masters; and non-Theosophy occultists like Alistair Crowley use the term Great White Brotherhood (he mentioned them in his book Magick). Keraunos (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Mahatma is a Sanskrit title that was coöpted by Blavatsky and her immediate forerunners, like Anna Kingsford. It has currency outside this context, as in Mahatma Gandhi. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2007 (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.

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. No WP:V sources despite 3-4 months being tagged for them. Only sources are apparently not independent of the mall ownership. Pigman☿ 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towne Mall[edit]

Towne Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall in Kentucky, doesn't meet precedent for super-regional classification. Tagged for sources and notability since August with nothing added. Also written in a somewhat promotional tone. (P.S.: It's hard to find any sources for this mall since there are about eight million other malls that are either "Towne Mall" or "_____ Towne Mall".) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This link reveals that the Gross Leasing Area of the mall is 353,000 square feet, and the mall has about 60 stores, which would seem to fall below the threshold of notability, but if it is the only mall in an eight-county region, it might qualify as notable. Malls are always very hard to find reliable sources for, unfortunately. Horologium (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article does not make the claim that it is the only mall. It appears to be another nn small US mall. The article is mostly about the area rather then the mall itself. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - What precedent? Please point out to me where it is written what you say is the precedent that has been agreed to by consensus ? Or that 353,000 sq ft, and/or 60 stores is an agree'd to 'threshold'? That argument is pointless after reading WP:BIG. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just doesn't seem notable beyond the locale. RMHED (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By that logic, it is then notable to the locals, and since there is no 'local' clause in WP:N, it should stay. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not clearly notable. Written in a promotional tone, as noted by the nominator. Dekimasuよ! 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be written like an advertisment and it isn't notable. Tavix (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2007 (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.

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 keep all. Pigman☿ 23:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master Hilarion, et al[edit]

Master Hilarion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a... thing... that has no notability outside of an obscure Victorian spiritualist movenment. Some material might be merged into Seven Rays, H. P. Blavatsky, etc. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for delete/merge:

• Sanat Kumara
• Morya
• Kuthumi
• Paul the Venetian
• Serapis Bey
• Master Jesus
• Djwal Khul

and the Theosophy sectoon of Count of St. Germain, at least, if the huge section discussing a dozen or so different Theosophanist's views on him in great detail is again restored. All form part of a huge walled garden. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Related AfD pages:

• A related article, Great White Brotherhood, was listed for deletion on the same day as the above articles, at this link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great White Brotherhood.
• This is the second nomination for deletion of the article Djwal Khul. The prior nomination was on March 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

[The above related-AfD links have been added in the interests of process transparency. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

---

• Delete or merge unless notability established on each individual article. These articles seem to fail WP:N: no evidence of substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. The sources in the article are from publishing houses that are owned by/associated with the various New Age movements that believe in these things. I conducted Lexis-Nexis searches of all the major English-language newspapers, plus Google Scholar searches, and found no substantial coverage from reliable, independent sources. I went to the Harvard library and pulled what seem to be the major reference books that discuss Ascended Master Teachings and other New Age movements and found little or no coverage of these subjects. Full disclosure: This AfD is the result of a somewhat heated discussion on the Fringe theories noticeboard (e.g., someone compared me and other editors to the Nazis and then the Taliban for trying to "censor" a religious movement). Fireplace (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Definitely keep all.

Since I am the individual being referred to by User:Fireplace, let me again repeat: I was referring to the mentality that desires to DENY information on subjects they find worthless. I had written: "Today that same mentality would smother access to subjects that it deems "fringe" and "pseudoscience". You have no right to make that value judgement when dealing with sourced and referenced articles, no matter what the subject matter. Using that tactic is simply not the way to build Wikipedia into the academic and NPOV encyclopedia that it is intended to be. "

I object to deletion. Before considering how to eliminate these few articles on subjects that many people consider spiritually significant to their lives, how about first considering the elimination of the

• HUNDREDS of Wikipedia articles on comic book characters from Marvel Comics and DC Comics, for example: List_of_DC_Comics_characters.
• HUNDREDS of Wikipedia articles on Catholic saints (List_of_saints) and
• HUNDREDS of Wikipedia articles on Hindu gods and goddesses (List_of_Hindu_deities)?

In the last 132 years, hundreds of books have been written about "Theosophy" and the "Ascended Master Teachings", in various languages and by many publishers. These have described their religious / philosophical theories, their "saints" and adepts, and the social phenomena of the 19th and 20th century organizations that developed from the foundations of the writings of Helena Blavatsky, Rudolph Steiner, Alice Bailey, Guy Ballard, and various others. Great White Brotherhood, Hilarion, Sanat Kumara, Morya, Kuthumi, Paul the Venetian, Serapis Bey, Master Jesus, Djwal Khul all are prominent in many 19th and 20th century religious and philosophical organizations.

All one can do with any religion, let alone those apart from the mainstream, is to faithfully report their beliefs taken from the literature of the believers of their religious belief system. In doing so, we are not assesing truth claims (such as the Mormons believing that God is a physical being on another planet), one simply reports on the beliefs held, with as much accuracy as possible - with reliable sources and references.

There is no need at all to assess the truth claims of the 20th century new religions. If people were to delve into assessing the truth claims of religion, then an entry on Christianity may as well begin with assessing whether God exists. The best approach would seem to be an accurate rendition of any movement's beliefs, nature, history and activities (regardless of what a Wikipedia editor's own views are). Questioning the validity or "notability" of religious beliefs isn't the role of an encyclopedia entry. Arion (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a researcher for the past 4 decades of the new religious movements of the 20th century, especially the ones born from the foundations of Esoteric Buddhism, "New Thought", Theosophical and Ascended Master Teachings. Our university department has especially examined the historical and social contexts of those minority religions. To exclude relevant data from Wikipedia on their beliefs, key religious "saints" known as "Ascended Masters", and the individuals who helped shape these organizations would be unthinkable. Arion (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I am against deletion or merging of the articles on Dwal Khul, Hilarion, Sanat Kumara, Morya, Kuthumi, Paul the Venetian, Serapis Bey, and Master Jesus. They are spiritually, historically, and socio-culturally significant to stand as separate articles Sage 122568.231.166.180 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)— 68.231.166.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep All Theosophy seems to be a notable religion and so its pantheon merits some detailed articles. See Google Scholar on Master Jesus which includes Christianity and Theosophy Harmonized. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does notability automatically transfer from a religion to its pantheon? Is that consistent with the "significant coverage" standard of WP:N? (Also, Christianity and Theosophy Harmonized does not appear to be an independent source.) Fireplace (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer In this case, the answer is yes. The only question here really is whether coverage of these folk should be merged with their treatment from other viewpoints. I think not, as this would tend to promote holy edit wars. See Islamic view of Jesus for another similar article to Master Jesus. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is the answer "yes"? Phrasing the answer in terms of Wikipedia policy/guidelines, in light of WP:N, would be more helpful. Fireplace (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For general help, I recommend WP:FANATIC. For this specific AFD, there's Subject is a POV. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure how pointing me to WP:FANATIC is relevant or civil. And Subject is a POV does not address the notability issue, which is the concern that led these articles to AfD. Fireplace (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It should not be necessary to explain that Jesus is notable. The Theosophist religious view of him is the fork in the POV which I find to be adequately notable and sourced. Your badgering of my position seems both hostile and intolerant in pursuit of your desire to destroy these articles. You note above your surprise at being compared with the Nazis. They espoused a ruthless, modern and scientific view of the world which led them to burn the books of which they disapproved. The WP:FANATIC essay encourages us to take a more relaxed view of our work here and it seems quite pertinent. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • ...I really don't think that that was being helpful, boyo. (And a ruthless, scientific view of the world that involved pagan rites based on the Siegfried myth?) Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Colonel Warden, I've been calmly discussing a legitimate policy question about interpreting the notability threshold. Fireplace (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A neutral point of view encyclopedia is founded on verifiability. Of course Wikipedia should have an appropriate depth and breath of coverage of the history, beliefs, and personalities of the theosophist movement, but having perused the articles, it appears that every one of them rests on overtly theosophist books for effectively all of the content. This is not a healthy state of affairs and seems to be an argument in favour of ruthless merging and/or redirecting. Could any of these articles be rewritten to use independent, non-theosophist sources for at least the key points? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Major figures in a major religion. I find it just as appropriate to use Theosophical sources as a description as to describe those of any other religion from its works. We don't look for non-Christian sources about Saint Paul, or insist on non-Moslem sources for Ali. If there is a controversial discussion of correspondence with secular individuals, then that might need better sourcing, but I do not see such claims being made, and its a matter of editing in any case. I generally wonder whether attempts to remove such articles are perhaps sometimes expressiond of a POV on religion or on certain religions.DGG (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep all Theosophy is not an “obscure Victorian spiritual movement”. It is the original basis for the New Age movement, which is composed of millions of people in the United States and Europe who believe in reincarnation. It was a Theosophist named Alice A. Bailey who invented the term New Age.
• In addition, the Church Universal and Triumphant, the major religious body formally subscribing to this belief system, has about 100,000 members, which seems significant. Keraunos (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there is the contemporary spiritual teacher Benjamin Creme who follows this metaphysical system of Theosophy and who has tens of thousands of followers all over the world. Keraunos (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the following references to the articles to establish notability:
    • Encyclopedic reference:
      • Melton, J. Gordon Encyclopedia of American Religions 5th Edition New York:1996 Gale Research ISBN 0-8103-7714-4 ISSN 1066-1212 Chapter 18--"The Ancient Wisdom Family of Religions" Pages 151-158; see chart on page 154 listing Masters of the Ancient Wisdom; Also see Section 18, Pages 717-757 Descriptions of various Ancient Wisdom religious organizations
    • Scholarly studies:
      • Campbell, Bruce F. A History of the Theosophical Movement Berkeley:1980 University of California Press
      • Godwin, Joscelyn The Theosophical Enlightenment Albany, New York: 1994 State University of New York Press
      • Johnson, K. Paul The Masters Revealed: Madam Blavatsky and Myth of the Great White Brotherhood Albany, New York: 1994 State University of New York Press Keraunos (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• However, I think that Mahatma, Ascended master, Great White Brotherhood, and Spiritual Hierarchy should all definitely be merged because these are all different names for the same group of alleged beings. The merged article should be called Masters of the Ancient Wisdom which was the original name used in the literature of the Theosophical Society. Keraunos (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that, it seems to address my question. If those four articles do all address the same topic under a different name, merging and redirecting is the right answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Keraunos. I'll take a look at the references, but assuming they are good (I was sent on a wild goose chase before in this discussion) this goes a long way to addressing my concerns. Fireplace (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No to any merging or redirecting As for reliable sources and verifiability: An excellent point was raised by DGG who pointed out that its "just as appropriate to use Theosophical sources as a description as to describe those of any other religion from its works." I agree that is how you get an accurate description of the beliefs of a religion or a philosophical concept. The article on Jehovah's Witnesses is an example how discussions of a religious belief have references to books written by the adherents of that belief. The same is true of the Roman Catholic Church and references to the "self-published" Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church when discussing what Catholic beliefs are. Arguments that we can apply different standards to a religion that has a smaller number of members are unconvincing.

An example of the problem with using an article that someone may erroneously consider a "reliable source" is that the author of that article may know practically nothing about the actual beliefs, and may only be interested in expressing contempt and ridicule of the subject. Fireplace used such an article (which used mocking terms like "two-bit alias" and "one of the kookiest cults") from the Los Angeles Magazine (See WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Walled_gardens_of_woo) to completely rewrite the I AM Activity article into an article written from a POV that this religious belief is a fraudulent con game, with inaccuracies such as the erroneous statement (from that Los Angeles Magazine hatchet job) that Guy Ballard claimed to be the reincarnation of Saint Germain or Jesus! Any review of the original sources would quickly reveal how contrary to their beliefs such a statement was. This emphasizes the problem with using outside sources to describe the religious beliefs of a church or religion. Arion (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were factual inaccuracies placed in the "I AM" Activity article by User:Fireplace as of result of his relying on an error-riddled article from Los Angeles Magazine. I just made edits that corrected a number of factual inaccuracies in this Wikipedia article, and gave specific citations to actual source documents to verify those edits. Within one half hour these corrective edits were reverted by Adam Cuerden (a Wikipedia administrator). What kind of explanation can possibly justify such action - again made without discussion nor consensus? Arion (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep all, regardless of what other editors think about Theosophy (and I'd like to note that I am not particularly fond of Theosophy), it is without a doubt a notable new religious movement and it's major figures are each deserving of an article just as much as the figures of any other religion. One must note that the Christian Bible is essentially a self-published work of the Roman Catholic Church, with a number of more modern translations also published within the walled garden of Christian religious publishers. Are you FRINGE guys serious about trying to apply this science guideline to matters of spiritual belief, or is this some kind of joke? Because if the former, you've just made yourself look rather ridiculous and this calls into question some of the other uses which has been made of this guideline. Curious Blue (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC) — User:Curious Blue has been indefinitely blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet.[reply]

• • The policy we've been citing in this AfD is WP:Notability, not WP:Fringe. Fireplace (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, unless you are arguing that Theosophy itself is not notable, then I think your efforts are misguided and give the appearance of being an attack on a notable new religious movement. Curious Blue (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there seems to be a considerable discussion on this at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, initiated by the nominator of these articles, and, Fireplace, you've taken part in it yourself. is there so much prejudice against the articles as to try to claim different rationales in different processes?. At Fringe, your argument was that the religion was "pseudo-philosophy." DGG (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely the discussion I was referring to. Is this what is known as "forum shopping"? Curious Blue (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this tone is helpful, please assume good faith. Curious Blue: The issue isn't whether the religion itself is notable -- it is. The issue is whether the individual deities of its pantheon are notable per the "significant coverage in independent sources" standard. DGG: There is a WP:N aspect of this discussion, appropriate for AfD. There is *also* a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE aspect, appropriate for flagging at the fringe noticeboard and for discussion on the individual talk pages. This isn't forum shopping -- there are multiple aspects to the discussion. Fireplace (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. My apologies, I did go too far with that forum shopping remark. Otherwise, though I stand by my comments as I was careful to talk about appearances leaving open the possibility that the appearances were just that, surface only. Curious Blue (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All. - I'm not a follower of this religion and have not edited these articles prior to this AfD. I must voice my concern that a group of articles about a significant minority religion were nominated for deletion following derogatory comments on the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard in a report titled "Walled gardens of woo". What is "woo" intended to convey? It reads like an insult to the believers in this religion, and to the editors who worked on the articles. An insult appears the text of this nomination also: The listed pages represent "Masters of Wisdom" according to Theosophy. In the nomination, they are described as "a... thing ..." What does that mean? How would people respond if a Catholic Saint or Archangel were referred to as "a... thing ..." ? Insulting characterizations of minority religious beliefs and the work of well-intentioned editors do not belong in Wikipedia.

• Not an "obscure Victorian spiritualist movenment [sic]": Not "Victorian", it started in the late 1800s and continues today; not one movement, but several; not "spiritualist", Theosophy and its descendants are part of Western esoteric tradition, forerunner of the modern New Age movement which generates a marketplace of billions of dollars a year today. Theosophy also has significant history in India. Google Books search for "Theosophy" shows 9,780 books. How many Google webhits? Over 2,400,000. Google tests have their flaws, but a number that large can't qualify as "obscure".
• Notable and verifiable: Inconsistent referencing is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. References can be found; Google Books shows hundreds of hits for each title, and Google Scholar over a hundred each. (The searches are not simple; some of the names have alternate spellings). Further on notability: here are a few Theosophists... poet WB Yeats; composer Alexander Scriabin; Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Waldorf Schools. Van Morrison's 1982 album Beautiful Vision states in its liner notes that the lyrics were influenced by a Theosophical book describing the teachings of Djwal Khul, one of the articles listed in this AfD.
• Not a WP:walled garden: Examples that link to the listed pages within a few clicks: Philosophy - Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Alchemy, Mysticism, Humanism, Metaphysics, Philosophy of religion, Esoteric Christianity; and, notable people - Carl Jung, WB Yeats, Alexander Scriabin, Rudolf Steiner, William James, Emanuel Swedenborg, Arthur Schopenhauer. (Some were Theosophists, but not all. The point is they link in a few clicks to the nominated pages showing there is no walled garden).
• References: It is not unusual for articles on religion to be based on references published by members of the religion. Examples: Ecumenical council, Eucharist (Catholic Church) , John of Damascus, Full communion ...each have no references not published by Catholic sources. Many religious articles on Wikipedia currently have no references at all. Examples: Divine Liturgy, Council of Ephesus, Veneration, Church Fathers. (No specific meaning in choice of examples, just for illustration). And, some of the nominated pages do have non-Theosophy-related references. I've not vetted them in detail, but I found these in a quick review: University of California Press, State University of New York Press, North Atlantic Books, Kessinger Publishing, Baker Book House, Sophia Perennis.
• Summary: The topics are notable and verifiable; not a WP:walled garden; they are part of a religious philosophy that has influenced Western society and others for over a hundred years. A religion may be small, but that does not mean its information should be excluded from Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Some of my comment may end up cross-posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great White Brotherhood, because that closely-related topic was nominated separately for deletion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]

• Keep all. There are dozens of subjects, from Xenu to Mary Baker Eddy, that might with equal justice be claimed to "have no notability beyond an obscure spiritual movement." This is a serious misreading of the notion of "notability," which is generally passed if a subject has generated a considerable literature - even if that literature is made mostly by believers for believers. FWIW, this seems to marginalize Theosophy and its offshoots more than is justified: for much of the twentieth century, the theosophical stream was the major current in Western esotericism, even if that stream became diminished in favour of others over the last third of the twentieth century. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This entry has 9 sources all tackling the subject in a an appropriate manner for their use the breadth and depth of these sources confirms both notability and verifiability. I would suggest that the user who started the afd is simply "unaware" of the subject because they are not interested in/an expert in the field.

I'd like to point out that notability is relative, not absolute, else few things would pass it. For example, as far as most of the world's 6 billion people are concerned, football (as played in America, not soccer) is a minority sport with little following or notability. I'd wager that the 90% of the world's population couldn't tell you what month the super bowl is played in, let alone which team won it. If notability was absolute you'd simply look at the fact that the game isn't played or watched anywhere else in the world except in a few specialist circles, then you'd look at the percent of the world's population who care about it (basically less than half of the US population), then you'd look at the people who don't care about it (most of the world's population), and you'd declare that football was not notable in absolute terms. - perfectblue (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This content would be a lot more accessible to a general audience if it were condensed and merged to a single article, or one main article with a few linked articles. If merging isn't acceptable I'd have to suggest deletion. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and as for merging, not only do I not see the point but the seven rays and ascended master teachings articles would be far too long with all the info on the ascended masters in them as well. This is what we do when articles are too long - split them. Just a long standing opinion of mine that it just looks tidier having separate articles on subjects where possible rather than having one huge article with an awkward title, which in this case would be on far too broad a topic, that people get redirected to.

Saying the ascended masters have no notability outside of theosophy is a silly rationale, just like saying the 1976 Wimbledon Championships have no notability outside of tennis and therefore all those articles should be deleted. There are published sources on this subject, therefore there is enough verifiable information.

I can't see what makes the articles on the ascended masters unmaintainable. I can, however, share User:Jack-A-Roe's concerns above of an obvious personal POV influence in the nominator's rationale for this whole thing... - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At the very least, these articles need to be considered independently. There may be cases where some of these can be merged, but others have significant attention devoted to them within Theosophy. As long as it is clearly identified within the article (which it seems to be in most cases) that these figures are specific to theosophy and their existence is the opinion of Theosophists rather than established fact, I don't see any NPOV problems. Notability needs to be resolved by individual cases of merging and expanding, rather than with a blanket vote. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Per Clay, these articles should be considered independently. Some may be a bit stubby right now, but that is not cause for deletion. —Whig (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing balance for the articles by adding a third party skeptical viewpoint: I added to the articles about the “Masters” that Madame Blavatsky spoke of in her lifetime the skeptical view of scholar K. Paul Johnson, who maintains that the “Masters” were actually idealizations of people who were her mentors. According to Johnson:

• The Master Morya was actually Maharajah Ranbir Singh of Kashmir, the most powerful roya patron of the Theosophical Society. Maharajah Singh died in 1885.

• The Master Kuthumi was actually Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, a member of the Singh Saba, an Indian independence movement organization and Sikh reform movement.

• Djwal Khul was actually Dayal Singh Majithia, a member of the Singh Saba.

• The Master Hilarion was actually Ooton Liato, a stage magician from Cyprus whom she met in New York City in 1873.

These are all referenced to the appropriate page in Johnson’s book Initiates of Theosophical Masters Albany, New York:1995 State University of New York Press.

The other "Masters" were apparently added by C.W. Leadbeater in his book The Masters and the Path.

In Hindu mythology, Sanat Kumara is a minor deity. Sanat Kumara is mentioned in Madame Blavatsky's most important work The Secret Doctrine. Keraunos (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, today I found out that it was Alice A. Bailey who added the other “Masters” in her 1922 book Initiation, Human and Solar. C.W. Leadbeater wrote about the same ones in more detail in his 1925 book The Masters and the Path. Keraunos (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I found an even earlier reference today in my library for the “masters” were not claimed to have been encountered by Madame Blavatsky in her lifetime. They are all mentioned in the 1913 book Man: Whence, How and Whither by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater. Keraunos (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I favor keeping those articles in Wikipedia since they are references with reliable sources. Is there suddenly a problem with space on Wikipedia? There sure seems to be room for hundreds of articles on characters from mythology, Catholic saints, and gods of Hinduism. Yet, there is no room for a mere handful of articles on Theosophical and Ascended Master teachings? Sage 1225Sage1225 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge - the sited references only mention the subject twice. Subject does not meet WP:N or WP:BIO guidelines. The article is only 3 sentences on the subject. There should be a page that lists all the deities with a brief description. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing opinion to Keep following Keraunos' additions of several third-party, reliable sources providing significant coverage. As I've said elsewhere, I'm saddened however by the quality of this discussion. Analogies to Catholic Saints are inappropriate -- aside from WP:OTHERCRAP, there are books like the Oxford Encyclopedia of Catholic Saints that establish third-party notability. Arguments of the form "theosophy is notable, therefore its deities are notable" are a misunderstanding of WP:Notability. Arguments of the form "this AfD is motivated by anti-new-religion prejudice" both fails to AGF and is irrelevant to the WP:N criterion. Fireplace (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe OUP makes the bulk of its money from publishing the Bible (it used have a UK monopoly, together with Cambridge--don't know if it still does) and OU was explicitly founded and endowed as a Christian organization. Therefore anything about Christian saints published by them is by your method of reasoning not 3rd party. This can be extended. Nothing about activities in the US can be N unless we find sources by those in other countries. Nothing by black authors is notable, unless those of other races write about it. Nothing by males is notable unless there are substantial publications about it by females. Nothing, in fact, written by humans will be notable until extraterrestrials discover us and start compiling their galactic encyclopedia. I am of course merely joking, but to show that at some point there is a cut-off by what we mean by "third party" or "independent". You have found yourself saying one rather extreme position, and if I were to say that any Religion, however small, determines its own notabiliy, I would be as far out in the opposite.

So the real question is where does Theosophy fall? Maybe its not a line, but a range: I'd say that it was large enough for its first level divine entities and organizations and leaders to be notable, but not below that, whereas the Christian church is large enough to accept the notability of not just the trinity, but all the saints. I think even here I wouldn't accept the lower level of "blessed" It's unfortunate that we are in the situation where the choice is N/~N. It makes these problems more difficult than they need be. DGG (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I really can't see why we'd delete this sort of thing; theosophy may be "an obscure Victorian spiritualist movenment" (though I've heard of it, which seems to count for something!), but the details of it are certainly of historical interest to the same extent they would be if contemporary. Shimgray | talk | 00:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • St. Germain article now matches other articles: I restored St. Germain’s alleged previous incarnations to the St. Germain article so it would match the other articles, but I kept it short and didn’t reinsert all the other material that was there before. Also, so it would match the other articles, I restored the Theosophy template to the St. Germain article. Finally, I added the encyclopedia reference from The Encyclopedia of American Religion and the skeptical scholarly books so that the references to the St. Germain article would match the other articles. Keraunos (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Pop culture factoids added: To round out the articles, I included instances of the appearance of the Master Jesus and Sanat Kumara in comic books in a popular culture section. (I am an avid comic book reader, fan, and collector.) Keraunos (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Key figures in religious movemrnts are automatically significant. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all I don't see how these articles cause a problem. They have sufficient notability and have reliable sources that support their existence/notability. Zouavman Le Zouave 11:56, 21 December 2007 (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.