Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morya (Theosophy)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Morya (Theosophy)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article reads like an advert of promoting Theosophy, there are enough Theosophy articles on wikipedia, the concept of "Morya" does not need a separate article, the subject is completey non-notable, it is even non-notable for occultism. Nearly the whole article is taken from four Theosophical books such as from Leadbeater or Creme etc, these books are not notable on this subject, no third party sources at all and from what I can see alot of it is copy and paste?, the sources are all published by the Theosophical society. Also look at the edit history of the article and you will see a large number of anonymous IPS doing mass edits, these IPS obviously have been connected to the Theosophical Society (you can see that by their edits only editing Theosophy articles). The article is also difficult to read, does the average person have a clue even what the article is even about? None of it makes sense. I suggest the article should be deleted or some of the information could be redirected to the main Ascended master article. GreenUniverse (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep While I can appreciate the nominator's frustration about the state of the article, and the feasibility or not of improvement, the question here is notability. In that context, looking at the one book I have to hand that covers Theosophy (Peter Washington's "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon"), this has a substantial number of index entries confirming Morya's in-universe role - from Blavatsky's first encounter in London/Ramsgate through to the Judge - Olcott disputes. AllyD (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Are we supposed to delete all articles on Christian saints, Greek philosophers, or American civil rights leaders because those topics have "enough" articles? The Theosophical Society shaped an enormous part of the New Age movement, as well as other occult and philosophical schools (eg: Anthroposophy). Morya was (and for Theosophists is) a very big part of what shaped the Society during Blavatsky's time and continues to influence practice. I vote for improvement, not deletion. Delete this and you might as well also rid Wikipedia of Socrates because our only sources on him are from Plato and a handful of other Greeks. - Hidoshi (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment One book is not enough to keep this article, can you put up 6 - 10 third party sources which discuss the concept of Morya? Morya in-universe role? Morya does not exist, it is a made up entity of Madame Blavatsky. If the concept of Morya was notable then it would atleast be included in the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology there is no entry for Morya in there and one line is dedicated to Morya which says it came from Blavatskys made up letters and fake hand-writing. The current article is a copy and paste job from three Charles Leadbeater books, and most of it is not properly sourced, a search for Morya online reveals only Theosophical resources. Outside of Theosophy this topic is not notable. Theres not enough reliable references for this article to remain in a separate article. GreenUniverse (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This "being" is also mentioned in Symonds' introduction to Aleister Crowley's Autobiography and a quick Google Books search is turning up this in a book on Steiner, this in a book on esotericism, this in a book on Gurdjieff, this encyclopaedia. The point about it being a "made up entity" is not relevant; were it so, it would imply the biggest-ever bulk AfD on figures from religious books. But notability is distinct from reality. AllyD (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This is what you forgot to mention:

1. The book on Steiner by Leviton is not a third party reference, Leviton elsewhere has published support for Theosophy, he is connected to the Theosophical society, see his articles such as 'A Précis of Albio which have been supported by Theosophists such as David Pratt. So in other words a Theosophist.

2. Regarding the Gurdjieff source- "Seymour Ginsburg is active in the Theosophical Society and was president of the Theosophical Society in South Florida for many years. He was a founder of the Gurdjieff Institute of Florida, and has been a student of Theosophy and of Gurdjieff’s teaching for more than twenty-five years." - Another Theosophist note how his books are published by Quest Books a theosophical company Profile for Seymour Ginsburg

3. Rosemary Guiley is an esoteric author and Theosophist, her books are published by the Theosophical Publishing House. See for example her book The encyclopedia of angels (1994). Again a Theosophist.

4. Roger Hutchinson on Aleister Crowley? Here is the source "Two of them, Koot-Hoomi and Morya, revealed themselves to Madame Blavatsky" - That is it. One line in the whole book.

Most paranormal books such as Encyclopedia of the unexplained: magic, occultism and parapsychology mention Morya but only in one sentence. This is not enough to have a massive article on wikipedia on. So far the only sources are Theosophical references, most of which are copy and paste from Leadbeater and Creme. The subject is not notable outside of Theosophy. If morya is to to be mentioned then mention it on a section of the main Theosophy article. GreenUniverse (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment You mention pasting of text. That's an important point if so, as any WP:COPYVIO text should be deleted. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -a horrid mess, but I think it can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability is not exclusively the domain of an article having multiple sources. Even if various authors were part of the Theosophical Society at one point, some like Helena Roerich split off (re: Agni Yoga) and would be considered, therefore, secondary sources anyway. - Hidoshi (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2012 (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.