Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashtar (extraterrestrial being)


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ashtar (extraterrestrial being)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't see how notability can be established for this, as all the sources related to it seem to fail WP:RS. The idea, regardless, seems to be extreme WP:FRINGE and warrants, at most, a mention in the article on channelling. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and possibly include a mention in Mediumship.  JUJUTACULAR  | TALK 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to George Van Tassel. The "information", properly presented and cited, could be of great help in an understanding of Van Tassel but it doesn't seem to have any independent notability or merit. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems, to me, an intelligent merge proposal. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination is premature The article currently has a "construction" template in place and is being actively discussed on its talk page. It's my intention to add further reliable references later today or tomorrow, at which point a clearer idea of the article and its associated citation's potential merit can be established. Merging with the Van Tassel article (which itself is in a "questionable" state) is certainly not out of the question. Deconstructhis (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If Deconstructhis is actively working on it I'm prepared to give him/her more time and have the debate relisted for a further week when it would otherwise expire. Otherwise my vote (merge) above stands. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Deconstructhis added the construction tag for their planned rewrite on 14 September 2009, see diff.—Ash (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the article is already the result of a major rewrite after a rename from Ashtar Galactic Command. The current article is not actually about the subject (Ashtar) but a list of UFO channellers based on their self published statements who have claimed to be in telepathic communication with Ashtar. Consequently the article is a misnamed unjustified content fork of contactee. The original Ashtar contactee case is covered in sufficient detail in George Van Tassel.—Ash (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge reliably sourced info to George Van Tassel. Some acceptable sources seem likely to be found. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There is only one source but its quality is quite good -- you can read most of the chapter on this phenomenon in the Google Books preview. The article has the sorts of problems that usually arise when a long article is derived from a single source.  I don't think there is much justification for keeping this as a separate article from George Van Tassel. Looie496 (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - I believe I found another source in James R. Lewis's encyclopedia at User:John Carter/Alphabetical list of new religious movements, under the name "Ashtar Command", but it will take a few days to get it. John Carter (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (note) You probably mean - as an encyclopedia this would be a tertiary source and such a summary is unlikely to result in significant revision of the article.—Ash (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: I didn't say that it would. However, its inclusion there, and the description of it, does help establish notability, which was one of the points raised against the article in the nomination. The fact that the "command" is notable enough to be included in that source I think is sufficient to leave at least a redirect to the Van Tassel article in place. A redirect here may well stay as well, because redirects are so "cheap" and the subject may be found to in some cases be reasonably mentioned in the context of Xenu and other alleged extraterrestrials of UFO religions. John Carter (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to "John Carter" Your point is well taken. A fair bit has been made of the purported influences on Hubbard by purely "magical" organizations such as the OTO, much less in my observations in a relative sense, of the possible influences on Hubbard by early "flying saucer" groups centred on people like George Van Tassel and his peers. It's interesting to note that both men were active in "fringe" group activities in southern California in exactly the same time frame, mid 1940's to early 1950's, and both showed a decided inclination regarding looking toward the stars for their religious "inspiration". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added three more references to the article. I want to make it clear that I have not adamantly maintained at any point that this material must under all circumstances be situated in its own 'free standing' article. As reflected in the sometimes contentious exchange that has occurred on the article's talk page (sections 15-19) between Ash and myself, I have focused on attempting to garner reliable sources to substantiate what the current version of the article is claiming, utilizing Helland's chapter in Partridge's book as a reliably sourced chronological framework to begin with. My intention has always been to add further reliable sources from the onset, as is made clear on the article talk page. My reticence in continuing to add sources beyond Partridge 2003 over the past several days is mostly as a result of Ash's insistence that Helland's chapter in Partridge that I utilized, did not itself constitute a reliable source, a position which I sincerely believe to be lacking in substance, when in my opinion references are easily obtainable that demonstrate that both Partridge and Helland are considered as authoritative on this subject by their academic peers, at least to the extent that both are cited by them in their own publications regarding the topic. I've found this experience somewhat useful in many ways, as it has enabled me to take a fairly good look at what's actually out there in terms of mainstream sociology and history of religion academic sources pertaining to this rather novel subject area and will allow me to have a much better idea of how to improve a number of currently rather 'shaky' articles like Van Tassel's and others. What I'm trying to point out is that many of these rather fringe articles remain in a deplorable state in my opinion simply because they are either solely supplied with self published 'true believer' type references, or conversely, the subject matter itself is summarily dismissed out of hand by editors who fail to accept that there actually are literature sources within the mainstream social sciences that can (in some cases) provide useful and reliable material on these topics. It doesn't have to remain that way. I'm willing to abide by consensus on this issue, all I'm asking is that reliable sources be taken at face value for what they are, and that properly referenced material is not deliberately excluded from the encyclopedia simply because some editors choose to believe that, contrary to the evidence at hand, reliable sources on the subject matter do not in fact exist. cheers  Deconstructhis (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interested parties may want to check out the discussion currently underway regarding the sourcing of this article going on at . cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (clarification) I have not challenged Helland and Partridge's authority, only whether the essay in Partridge's book was good as a secondary source as per WP:PSTS. My comments and repeated explanations and clarifications for Deconstructhis on the article talk page and the notice raised about the book at WP:RS/N make this clear.—Ash (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply What isn't made clear however, is that Helland's treatment of the subject in the chapter goes beyond "collating" primary materials as you're contending on WP:RS/N, it extends into synthesis and commentary on the topic as well. What remains unanswered on the talk page, is despite the fact that Helland is cited by his peers in reliably published books as an authority on this specific subject[ you believe that his chapter in this book somehow exceeds the parameters of any authoritative secondary source author to collate, synthesize and comment on primary documents. Although it may be regarded as heavy handed by some, I believe that it is contextually relevant to point out that Ash has already maintained a position on the article's talk page that they regard the entire subject area itself as "rubbish" that should be "deleted from Wikipedia" and that "[c]consequently I'm probably not the right person to address POV". When challenged on the issue of the appropriateness, in terms of neutrality, of any editor actively working on material for an article while holding a position like this beforehand, I was told that I was "free to speculate, though I suggest you judge my edits instead." I offer this as an indication of how much of an 'uphill battle' this has been, in some instances, from the onset. cheers [[User:Deconstructhis|Deconstructhis]] (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not selectively quote me out of context. I was rejecting a suggestion that I be the person to find better sources as any reader can see if they follow the diff. You are making the bad faith assumption that I cannot hold personal views on the subject and make NPOV edits. This is why I recommended examining my article edits (not talk page discussion) rather attempting to defame portray me as your evil nemesis by speculating in writing as to my personal motivation. You will note that at no point have I speculated as to your motivations. I do not understand why you think that making a personal attack on me helps your case. Your comments are not appropriate in this AFD discussion.—Ash (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, no "legal threats" implied or otherwise. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am obliged to replace "defame" with words that are less likely to be misinterpreted by Deconstructhis. I am attempting to comply with WP:NPLT.—Ash (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DELETE Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of purportedly channelled "beings". Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP This is a fascinating story, and the story is told from a reliable source. Keraunos (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:INTERESTING.—Ash (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It appears the article is cited, and reliable sources as well. I (as well as others) might find the subject itself ridiculous, but it appears to meet notability.  Of course, I can't verify it (Or, too lazy to look up the books), but I don't see a problem with the reliability of the sourcing. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response I'm torn between an outright merging of a fair bit of this material and its references directly into George Van Tassel, or simply letting it free stand as a separate article. I have reasons for both. Merging it will help substantiate the current version of Van Tassel, something that it really needs in my opinion. At present, "Ashtar", the figure Van Tassel's created, isn't even named in that article, despite the fact that I've been encountering solid references that indicate that of all of Van Tassel's "projects", Ashtar is in all likelihood the only one that's still around and has maintained and developed a relatively large following within the context of several different New Age groups, some of which actually have, again in a relative sense, fairly large followings. Which is why I'm partially drawn to letting the article stand on its own and create appropriate links. One of the problems I see in simply deleting these kinds of articles, is that encyclopedia users are then driven, in a sense, towards information available online that only tells one side of the story, the 'true believers' version. Why not put together articles that tell the whole properly referenced story. Other editors have pointed out that entire families of articles, "Theosophy" most prominently, are a mess of one sided information; they're absolutely right. In this case, in my opinion it's pure dereliction. Theosophy, in particular the subject of Blavatsky herself, has been studied over and over by mainstream historians and others, there's no excuse for how completely one-sided some of those articles are. In my opinion, the solution isn't reflexively deleting material, it's thorough referencing and good editing. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: My own choice would be to place this content in Ashtar Galactic Command, with whatever additional material on the associated "group" might be available, because it can be seen to be more clearly about the "group" who credit the idea rather than just about the entity about whom the group is built. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Carter: I think I know where you're going with that, I considered something similar myself when the name of the existing article was up for debate on its talk page. What I gained an impression of when I started reading was that there are at least two (probably more) distinct organized representative groups who use "Ashtar" and "Command" in the name of their organization, one is the more heavily organized group that sponsors a hub social network site that encourages their participants to create their own sites to promote the beliefs. They seem to primarily call themselves "Ashtar Galactic Command", with a few minor variants. The problem I have is that all I'm seeing is a plethora of websites and claims, I'm not seeing any real indication of the notability of that particular group beyond that. Before I started working with this article (and its name was changed) it appeared to me to be simply a promotional mini-stub for the website of the group calling itself "Ashtar Galactic Command", which I believe was someone's initial intention. Switching the article title back to "Ashtar Galactic Command" would in effect be us declaring the website based group as notable enough for inclusion as an article, I don't see any evidence to support that. A look into a recent edition of Melton's 'Encyclopedia of American Religions',in the flying saucer section, might prove useful. I don't have access to one at the moment. IMO one last indicator against redirecting all our "Ashtar" eggs into one website based basket is the idea that the figure and name "Ashtar", along with a chunk of Van Tassel's mythos, has been appropriated by relatively larger groups like Church Universal and Triumphant, with membership in the thousands. Unless I see some reliable evidence, I don't feel I'm in a position to say that the wesite group "Ashtar Galactic Command" can claim to be the authoritative voice here. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The beings worshipped by the Church Universal and Triumphant as Ascended masters do not include any that are believed by them to ride in flying saucers. Joshua David Stone was the only Ascended Master Teachings teacher so far to accept "Ashtar" as one of the "Ascended Masters".  He included "Ashtar" on his list of Ascended Masters that "sponsored" his yearly April Wesak gathering at Mount Shasta.  Keraunos (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response - Actually, I wasn't thinking along those lines at all. All I was thinking that "Ashtar Galactic Command" (or maybe "Ashtar Command", I'll have to check) was the name used for entry in the Lewis encyclopedia, and the title of this article, referring as it does more to the alleged entity than the humans responding to that alleged entity, seems to be a bit more limited. Also, as that is the title of that entry in the Lewis book, I'm assuming it might be the more popularly known name, as per WP:NAME. I don't personally know at this point exactly who was referrred to in that entry, and the location of that book isn't open today. But I will check and see exactly what is referred to in that entry. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to JC That Lewis information will be useful. If I'm understanding the sources correctly the distinction between "Ashtar Command" and "Ashtar Galactic Command" could be important. The first one appears to be the name given to the group Robert Short (the editor of a UFO magazine at the time) initiated in the mid 50's, when he split from Van Tassel's group the "Ministry of Universal Wisdom". The group "Ashtar Galactic Command" appears to be of a more recent vintage, possibly out of the "post Tuella" period. My concern is that we're going to end up with an article called "Ashtar Galactic Command" that has a single link at the bottom to the online group, creating the direct impression that the subject of the article is that particular group alone. As I said, I'm not comfortable with helping to create an impression that a single group is notable enough for it's own separate article simply because they included the name "Ashtar" in their name and it's only being backed up with claims on a social networking site and its associated website ring, I'd like to see reliable references. Thanks for your help so far. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article should be kept because there is too much material to put in the George Van Tassel article and this alleged "being" Ashtar has developed a "life" of his own, with some believers believing that this "being" commands a large fleet of hundreds of flying saucers patrolling near Earth calld the Ashtar Galactic Command that some of these people believe will land in 2012. Also, the story of how "Vrillon" came to be regarded as the spokesperson for this flying saucer fleet still needs to be told as part of the article. Keraunos (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (old argument) There are no reliable sources that associate "Vrillon" with "Ashtar" apart from recent website hoaxes designed to promote a website named "Vrillon". The single non-circular source is Burton Paulu's book where he is talking about the 1977 broadcast hoax and he manages to get the date of the hoax wrong (search on Google Books for "Vrillon Ashtar"). This was discussed at length on Southern Television broadcast interruption hoax (1977) so please don't waste everyone's time by repeating such poorly sourced rubbish.—Ash (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Well referenced, and has sufficient independent sources to establish notability. Nonsense, but notable nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article needs improvement, certainly, but the topic certainly satisfies WP:NOTE. Here are some sources in books, web, scholarly sources, news. I could make it into a WP:GA-rated article but it is not a focus of mine right now. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.