Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ascended Master


 * Someone's been spending entirely too much time dressed in saffron robes and selling petunias at the airport. Thought this was a copyvio, but it seems to be from the likes of the Bhagavid Gita made even more incomprehensible. - Lucky 6.9 23:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) ''Addendum: This page was originally on Votes for deletion/Old but moved here due to a deadlocked discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The topic of Ascension and Ascended Masters has a history that dates back thousands of years. Currently the topic is raised in religious and metaphysical circles. If you have no experience on this topic or simply don't beleive in it, that isn't a strong enough justification for deletion, otherwise we should delete just about every religious or metaphysical topic on Wikipedia. There is no copyright violation - no material was used from previously published material. If the topic is too complex or if you disagree with something, provide something substantial from your own experience, not just a character assasination based on your opinion. Chris, 10 Jul 2004
 * Delete, or seriously clean up. I see nigh unto nothing usable at present. I have Totally Disputed this article. The nonsense is patent. - Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 00:16, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yo, Chris: No sockpuppets allowed.  And I don't think that voting to delete an anonymous article that I understood to be of a questionable nature qualifies as "character assasination."  There are a great many subjects on this site about things that I neither believe nor believe in.  The difference is that the other articles in question are written like neutral encyclopedia articles and not point-of-view essays that an average reader would find incomprehensible or even nonsensical.  If you don't believe me, consider this:  At least one other regular user has called you to task on this. - Lucky 6.9 02:53, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into ascension. While I believe that these ideas are away with the fairies, I think that some of the detail could be made NPOV (with a great deal of effort) and moved. Noisy 09:08, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay everyone. Points taken. The article needed to be more substantial and rewritten. I've rewritten the article to provide more of a NPOV with viewpoints on both sides. If anyone has ideas on how to make it more NPOV, please contribute. Mahamudra 17:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge anything rescueable into ascension. Cutler 21:11, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Much better. This is more of a cleanup candidate so it can be wikified and NPOV'd.  It's also written in a more layman-friendly style. - Lucky 6.9 22:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup, needs more history. Belief in Ascended Masters has a long history.  IIRC it comes out of theosophy, moves through the I AM movement and is currently promoted by Elizabeth Clare Prophet's outfit, and likely others.  Some sense of this history needs to get into the article, though.  The point is that it is a doctrine that is "out there" in the attestation sense as well as the other sense.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, clean up and provide more historical reference. Belief in Ascended Masters (as opposed to ascension itself) is important to understanding the background of Theosophy and many New Age sects. It's similar to having articles on Saints, and even specific saints like Bernadette Soubirous, in addition to having an article on Catholicism in general. Apparently the original article gave offense simply because it was written by a believer. As it stands now the article simply needs things like "reportedly" and "supposedly" or "Devotees of the Ascended Masters believe that..." etc., and a few links to things like chakras (mentioned but not linked) and Edward Bulwer-Lytton, who is probably now in the place all bad writers go, suffering extreme pangs of remorse for having come up with the idea in the first place.  I am extremely familiar with these doctrines and I will be glad to help fix it up. --Bluejay Young 21:51, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * The fact that it was written from what appeared to be the hopelessly slanted and somewhat incomprehensible POV of a believer as more of an essay than an encyclopedia article is the reason it was put here in the first place. I'm ecstatic that it was put here because of the attention it's received and the fact that it's now on its way to becoming a fabulous article. - Lucky 6.9 22:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * A complete New Age dog's breakfast. The content is already covered for the most part in a much more npov fashion at the various religious articles mentioned. Delete. Fire Star 20:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Not sure how it read before the rewrite, but there's enough meat in the article to give it its own page, linked from the massively overloaded Ascension (disambiguation) page. It needs serious cleanup and NPOV, though.  Keep if reworked, delete otherwise.  --Ardonik 20:22, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Gary D 23:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that no article on Krishnamurti would be complete without references to the Ascended Masters, since belief in them formed such an important part of his early education under Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater of the Theosophical Society. They were grooming him to "become" Lord Maitreya, permanently, full-time. This is the origin of Christian fundamentalist rhetoric against New Age belief in the incarnation of Maitreya, whom they think of as the Antichrist. This is another reason for maintaining a separate article on the Masters. Whether one believes in them or not is beside the point. --Bluejay Young 06:10, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)