Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashtar Galactic Command (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashtar Galactic Command
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

After trimming out self published sources that fail WP:RS (see talk page), only one book is used as a direct reference to support the article (which is not exclusively about Ashtar Command). If this reference is considered by anyone to have any real value it could be merged into the existing and comprehensive Vrillon article but does not justify a separate article as this covers the same claimed (hoax) contactee event. There is no need to create articles for every organization, name or term ever used in badly reported contactee statements, which is this particular case is not seriously contested as an obvious hoax event. I recommend the page is changed to a redirect to Vrillon.—Ash (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC) *Merge/Redirect with Vrillon hoax incident, additional information should then be added to that article indicating how the term has been appropriated and perpetuated through use by later "New Age/Conspiracy" individuals and groups. Deconstructhis (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC) After subsequent reading on the subject I've had a change of heart and no longer believe there's enough evidence to support merging this article with the Vrillon hoax incident article. I've discovered that "Ashtar Command" (note, not Ashtar Galactic Command) appears to have been a term first used by proto UFO contactee George Van Tassel in the early 1950's, as the name of an extraterrestrial organization that he purported that he was in contact with. As is the case with many UFO religions, the names of purported extraterrestrial organizations or supposed contacted 'entities' are simply appropriated by other groups and individuals over time with tweaks being made to the specific details. This appears to have been the case with Van Tassel's "Ashtar Command" as well, before the end of the 50's, I've found evidence of at least one other individual who had lifted the term for their own system. Apart from Van Tassel adherents and a limited number of offshoots, its use appears to have experienced a bit of lull until the 1980's, when another contactee/channeller named Thelma B. Terrell (also known as "Tuella") wrote a series of books which re-popularized it. This in turn led to further appropriations of the term, eventually leading to the variants such as "Ashtar Galactic Command" being used on websites by the online groups we see today. The Gods have landed: new religions from other worlds by James R. Lewis is useful in support of what I'm saying (try running "Ashtar" on the 'in book' search function) unfortunately, once again as is often the case, Google Books will not allow a full view of the material online. The Study of UFO Religions by John A. Saliba‌ in the academic religious journal Nova ReligioNovember 2006, Vol. 10, No. 2, Pages 103–123 is informative on this matter as well. What I'd like to see done, is that this article be renamed "Ashtar Command", reduced to a stub and re-written along the lines of what I've outlined above, including full proper references from reliable sources. What I definitely don't want to see done at this point, is that this article remains in its present nebulous state, basically a potential jumping off point for promotional links to the websites of only one or two editor's particular belief systems. The term has been in play for over 50 years in one form or another, I'd suggest that any claims to its exclusive (or "proper") use are simply an expression of a non-neutral point of view. I think I'll copy and paste a version of this missive to the articles talk page as well. Sorry for the length. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect: In current state, seems to be no reason to have a separate article from Vrillon. --Milowent (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect:As per Recommend speedy close as redirect does not require AfD.Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (note) The term Ashtar may have been perpetuated but the sources for the 1977 hoax do not make it clear that the words "Ashtar Galactic Command" were used. The Times mentions "Intergalactic Association" but not "Ashtar". Consequently it is likely to be original research to conclude that the 1977 broadcast incident was appropriated by later groups, music bands or individuals creating websites about Ashtar. It is more likely that one of the spiritualists claiming to be "channelling" a message from an E.T. created the original terminology though with a dearth of anything even beginning to look like a reliable source, even this is wild speculation and fails WP:OR.—Ash (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep George Van Tassel's alleged 1952 communication from Ashtar is linked to in the George Van Tassel Wikipedia article and even back then he was in a dispute with someone named Robert Short who was claiming communication from a group called the Ashtar Command: George Van Tassel's alleged communication from Ashtar:. Van Tassel said the correct term was Ashtar, not Ashtar Command. If the controversy about the alleged Ashtar has been around since 1952, then certainly this article should not be deleted, especially seeing as how after the Vrillon hoax incident some assumed that "Vrillon" was a spokesperson for the "flying saucer fleet" now renamed the Ashtar Galactic Command. This is a fascinating story that deserves to be recorded. It is especially interesting that, as I found out last month, since the late 1990s, some followers of newer Ascended Master Teachings groups have come to accept Ashtar of the Ashtar Galactic Command as one of the Ascended Masters alongside the more traditional ones. Keraunos (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (note) Please be careful about sources, your quote from Van Tassel about channelling is from a self published user page (the quote may or may not be valid) and "Vrillon" was never part of the 1977 broadcast hoax incident but made up later by whoever created the vrillon.com website (the registrant details are anonymous) and has no demonstrable connection with people who un-verifiability claim to hear voices from ETs and have managed to get their ramblings published. I do not dispute your statement that some of the fringe "spiritualist" groups you have been effectively promoting on Wikipedia may believe in this sort of demonstrably fake UFO event, as they seem to a great capacity to call almost anything a religious experience, particularly when someone is charging them $150/hour for the consultation. This does not make such chaff encyclopaedic.—Ash (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's try to stay on a neutral track here in terms of sticking to the matter at hand, the subject of this particular article. Whether or not a particular group or groups are "legitimate" in some absolute sense, or critical observations of how much they charge for their "religious" services being used as a measure of that purported legitimacy is well outside a npov position in my opinion. It may require a trip to an actual library (and/or a good 'dig' online), but reliable published sources from mainstream social scientists in the fields of both sociology of religion and religious studies exist regarding these specific topics, there really is no need to reach into heavily biased self published books and websites to substantiate claims in these articles, beyond extracting quotes to substantiate what they say about themselves. At this point, I propose that this afd be declared closed as a failure to reach consensus and that the discussion be returned to the article's talk page for further dialogue. I believe it's quite possible to put together a properly referenced article (I propose naming it something like "Ashtar (Channelling)" or "Ashtar command") that adequately and neutrally represents the subject from its beginnings in the 1950's or perhaps slightly before based on reliable sources I've looked at so far. The present group calling itself "Ashtar Galactic Command", or other groups who have appropriated the term "Ashtar" and incorporated it into their systems wish to make additions to the article, fine, but it must be clear that information can only be derived from a reliable source according to our policies (barring the exemption for self description that I mentioned above) and perhaps just as importantly in order to adhere to policy they must demonstrate their own notability as per WP:NOTE before their group can be included in the encyclopedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've located a reliably published source containing information regarding the development of the concepts of "Ashtar" and "Ashtar Command" within various UFO religions starting in the early 1950's to present, a fair bit of which is available in online book form. Later this evening (EDT) Later today or tomorrow I'll be posting details on the articles talk page. It's written by a sociologist of religion and looks quite promising in terms of allowing us to put together a half decent stub article which reflects a competent historical overview of the subject. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see the article talk page for details on my new edits to the article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename the repurposed article. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 21:52, 16 September 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.