Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic consciousness


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Cosmic consciousness

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:SYNTH issues. Where appropriate, content could be merged into collective unconscious, but I don't actually see anything worth keeping. Instead we have a hodgepodge of unrelated proposals relating to Jungian psychoanalysis and esoteric theologies. Actually, this is a classic instance of original research. jps (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete the article due to lack of reliable references but redirect "Cosmic Consciousness" to Richard Maurice Bucke, he was the inventor of the term and the only notable author on the topic. The term may be useful for those looking for his book. Goblin Face (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – Synthesis and OR are editorial issues, separate from any question of notability. The term has established itself in common parlance, not just through Bucke but Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Stanislav Grof, Olivia Robertson, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, and others. There seems to be potential here for an article. The topic itself is as encyclopedic as any other religious/spiritual concept already on WP. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because people use two words in succession doesn't mean that this is a recognized term or that they are all talking about the same thing. There is no potential for an article because there is no agreement as to what the subject actually is. There are only different people who use the term to mean different things and we can't throw them all together without violating WP:SYNTH. It is impossible to write an encyclopedic article on this subject which conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines. Original research has always been a legitimate reason to delete an article. jps (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 06:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep — Not a recognized term? Not recognized by whom? I think there are a great many people indeed who do recognize it. See, for instance, the list in the article of closely related or synonymous terms. Deleting the article also would delete the material about Bucke's theory of stages of development of consciousness, a novel (at that time) concept and one that is significant for metaphysics and religion. Instead of being deleted, this article should be supported by a separate article about Bucke's book. Wahrmund (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep — Classic work by Bucke. Tons of references to it in the literature. TimidGuy (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is clearly the subject of significant coverage in many reliable secondary asources (in literally hundreds of books, including one by noted scholar Camille Paglia already in the article). Problems can be fixed through the normal editing processes. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep Highly relevant; compare William James' "Varieties of Religious experience". Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've re-ordered the article.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And have a look at Higher consciousness for even worse...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep -- The term is used by Michio Kaku in Parallel Worlds. From page 145: "To answer this question, physicists have been forced to entertain two outrageous solutions: either there is a cosmic consciousness that watched over us all, or else there are an infinite number of quantum universes." --Cei Trei (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2014 (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.