Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Being (Ascended Master Teachings)


 * 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. Black Kite 20:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Being (Ascended Master Teachings)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The term "Comic Being" is no more notable than many other terms made up by the two "spiritualists" quoted to death in this unnecessary and biased article. If this definition of a non-notable term possibly coined by Elizabeth Prophet and Joshua Stone needs an article (rather than being a one-line mention in the associated lengthy articles about these authors), then why not all the other terms they endlessly repeat in their books such as Cosmic Map, Way Beacons, Cosmic law and Cosmic Ascension? The bias of the article is evident by the lack of balanced sources, relying on massively over-quoting the same authors in order to give the article an illusion of validity. There are too many articles on Wikipedia about the same UFO cults and this is an ideal one to delete to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Ash (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable concept,: conflation of several rival cultists' teachings constitutes synthesis and original research. Merge into ascended master or some such, perhaps? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is an interesting and useful article to anyone who wants to do research into the beliefs of New Age religions. The Ascended Master Teachings is a group of religions based on Theosophy, they are not UFO cults, they do not mention UFOs or flying saucers.  Only the one ascended Master Teacher Joshua David Stone mentions Ashtar as being an Ascended Master along with the traditional ones, a surprising development, as this is a unique inclusion of an alleged UFO related entity as a deity of these religions. Keraunos (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (UFO cult) For the text of the nomination I was only going by the exact same "Cosmic Beings" listed in this article that are also listed on UFO religion (which UFO cult redirects to). If you think that article is factually incorrect, perhaps you'd better start correcting it (with appropriate sources; oh, though I note you have already made significant edits to that page in the past). BTW, I can see you are rapidly adding references and "Further reading", unfortunately you appear to be adding sources that do not actually use the term "Cosmic Being" which is rather the point of the article. Perhaps you could check that they do rather than expecting other editors to do the work?—Ash (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is only one Cosmic Being listed in both articles--Ashtar--and "he" is a "Cosmic Being" by definition according to the Ascended Master Teachings because he is regarded (by some, such as Joshua David Stone) as an Ascended Master that is not from Earth. Keraunos (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The further reading section books do not need to mention the term "Cosmic Being". They are books to refer to for anyone who wants to research the history of these religions in general, or are skeptical books such as the one by K. Paul Johnson, that debunk these belief systems.  Keraunos (talk)
 * Wikipedia articles do not carry sections for general research. "Further reading" sections are not the norm, but where they do exist any source should be directly relevant to the article and in preference it should be integrated as a reference. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. In this case a list of books not directly relevant just seems to add fake validity. If you wish to discuss the matter further please do so on the article talk page.
 * BTW Sanat Kumara is mentioned on both pages as well as Ashtar, I didn't bother checking any other names.—Ash (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason Sanat Kumara is mentioned on both pages is because the modern Theosophical guru Benjamin Creme believes, unlike traditional Theosophical gurus, that Sanat Kumara came to Earth in a flying saucer (Creme is a former member of the Aetherius Society). Keraunos (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, your earlier statement - they are not UFO cults, they do not mention UFOs or flying saucers - just looks slightly contradictory now you have two "Cosmic Beings" flying around in saucers based on the statements of people that you call "gurus". Perhaps you should stop flogging this one.—Ash (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks like original research and a point of view fork from the Ascended Master Teachings article to me. The "Ascended Master Teachings" article itself, in my opinion, also needs a bit of work, but at least it contains a few core reliable independent sources, this one appears to be a grouping of editor selected cherry-picked quotes from primary sources in an attempt at pushing their own particular perspective on the subject. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  12:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * DELETE the entire reference list is primary sources. Furthermore WP:INDISCRIMINATE comes into play as this is quite literally a list of stuff - chiefly proposed entities who the authors claim exist at various places in the galaxy.  Theosophy may be is notable but that doesn't mean that every article related to Theosophical ephemera is likewise notable.  Delete article and merge any notable commentary into bio page for authors of primary source material. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Shenanigans! This material does not belong as an independent article and the writers know that. Redirect it somewhere. Miami33139 (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, sources are all in-house. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, and start over. Aside from Abductive's note that all the sources are in-house, I feel compelled to point out that we are not a guide book for any religion whatsoever, be it new age, pagan, Abrahamic, or the Flying Spagetti Monster.  I say start over for a simple reason - if we are to have an article about this subject, it needs to be far more objective than it is, and rely on other materials that are not from in house. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:44, 23 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.