Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occult science


 * 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 merge to Occult. The article's subject is found to not be notable enough for its own standalone article. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Occult science

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems like a very broad subject, it might be able to grow into something, but I am not sure it can at this time. Might be better as a disambig. South Nashua (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep I think there are sufficient sources to establish as notable some coverage of the use of the form and/or methods of science in occult circles. This seems like the right place to put that article. Western esotericism and related articles are probably adequate to cover it for Western subjects specifically, and could subsume this article if they were our only concern, but there's also plenty of sources on the incorporation of scientific concepts in Eastern esotericism e.g. Onmyōdō. Provided the article sticks to discussion of the topic itself as much as possible, and doesn't digress into merely enumerating these different occult traditions, I think it's ultimately OK. Layzner (Talk) 18:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment You might be right. I thought more about this and if I'm wrong, if it's possible to clean this up, I'll withdraw my nom. I don't have the expertise or confidence in this subject, otherwise I would have done that rather than beginning this discussion.However, I also think you're right in that this article can easily get a bit too crufty if it doesn't focus, that was my big concern. South Nashua (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The use of the term is intended to suggest that the occult is scientific, which makes it inherently WP:POV. Also, there is no reliably referenced content here; and any relevant content that comes up would be better placed in other articles, such as Western esotericism. -- 120.17.62.166 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That would be like saying we cannot have an alchemy article because it suggest alchemy is chemistry.  Science has many more definitions fields that use the scientific method.  See definitions from Merriam-Webster, which includes examples of "Science of theology" and Christian Science, two fields that are hardly scientific.  Consider also the word's etymology .   --David Tornheim (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with the above that it suggests that the occult is scientifically valid, which is both WP:POV and very problematic without any attempt at a citation to back it up. Attempted to find a source that might offer an opportunity for expansion but couldn't find anything remotely reputable with ease. PriceDL (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and : See my comment above; I agree with the comment immediately below as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not an attempt by a Wikipedian to legitimize occult ideas as scientific; this is a subject called "occult science". If it's unscientific, pseudoscientific, etc. (and it is) then we can say as much, but that's irrelevant to its notability. Rudolf Steiner and Helena Blavatsky have written extensively about this idea, and, as far as I know, not in very dissimilar ways. I'm not so sure the term is used in the same way consistently elsewhere, however, such that it's practical to have a stand-alone article. There have been plenty of attempts to reconcile science and the occult, and plenty of scientific concepts have historical connections to occult ideas, but the question is whether there is a distinct concept "occult science". I think that there is, but I don't feel confident weighing in in that way. If we're answering about whether there's "significant coverage" of something called "occult science", the answer is clearly yes, but it's not that simple. I also don't see that there's a whole lot of content worth hanging onto here. I mainly wanted to push back against the crux of the previous two !votes. Pinging, who may have some knowledge about this. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm happy to accept that it may be notable, however I don't believe it should exist with its current text without sufficient citations. As I mentioned, I did try to find one and if I had been successful probably would have voted as a weak keep. If citations are not provided, the article should probably be wiped blank, in which case why keep it? PriceDL (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: the term "occult sciences" is one that has had significant usage within western esotericism and there will certainly be academic sources that discuss said usage. On that basis, there is grounds for this article to be kept. However, the article is currently in a shockingly bad state, so there is a case for deletion at this juncture with the proviso that it can be re-created in future when someone with the time and attention to use those academic sources can do so. On balance I'd probably go with a weak keep. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Midnightblueowl. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete by way of WP:TNT. I have no objection to a better article being written later but this is not that article. Orrrrrr possibly merge and redirect to a section in Western esotericism. If we get enough WP:RS we can always split it back out at a later date. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: the term "occult science" has certainly been used, but it's been used by different people to mean different things. The book Occult Science by Rudolf Steiner is very different in its message from Theosophy, Religion and Occult Science by Henry Steel Olcott, for example. So "occult science" does not refer to a specific topic; it's just a phrase. In the case of this article it's not clear what uses of the phrase are supposed to be covered. What is clear is that there is no sourced content at all. -- 120.17.179.67 (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: While that's true of those writers, modern scholarly sources written by historians (e.g. Hanegraaff, Newman, Grafton) tend to use the term in a not-uncontested but reasonably consistent way. Layzner (Talk) 02:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (or alternatively move and redirect Occult and Rudolf Steiner).  The article can be expanded.  Two articles in Scientific American,  (I can't seem to read either).  Also, use of the term by Rudolf Steiner as an entire piece (also ), so it may be part of the curriculum used in Waldorf Schools (See for example this article criticizing Anthroposophy complaining specifically:
 * He lectured profusely on topics such as reincarnation, hypnotism, occult science, Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, mystery centers of the middle ages, astral bodies, gnomes as life forms, angels, karma, Christian mysticism, how to see spiritual beings, modern initiation, Atlantis, Lemuria, etc. Steiner's sermons, setting out his occult teachings, were recorded by his disciples and published in more than 350 volumes. [emphasis added]
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 20:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Could we merge this article into "Occult"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me as long as "occult science" is truly a subset of "occult" and not something significantly different. I don't know enough about either subject to be sure.  Has anyone seen anything in the WP:RS to say definitively one way or another about the relationship between the two subjects?  I don't think of Rudolf Steiner as believing in the paranormal which is part of the definition of the occult.  He seems to be more interested in mysticism and spirituality.  It might, in fact, make more sense to merge it with Steiner and Anthroposophy or whatever we have on the Waldorf school curriculum.  But I am not clear if his school has a kind of monopoly on the term or whether there are various definitions for it.  In that case possibly multiple merges and redirects are in order. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest this article as a starting point. Layzner (Talk) 01:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * delete and leave redirect to Theosophy as this term is primarily part of that bundle of wax and is just the gussied up term they used to describe what they were up to. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to Theosophy alone seems inappropriate given this article by Wouter Hanegraaff which does not mention theosophy or Rudolf Steiner at all. However, there is support to merge with occult which is acceptable to me. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Hanegraaff is a theosophist. And no i am not going to get into a big debate with you over that.   Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Hanegraaff is a theosophist"? Since when? I'm not quite sure that this is accurate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete this oxymoron and leave redirected to theosophy, as above. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to Theosophy alone seems inappropriate given this article by Wouter Hanegraaff which does not mention theosophy or Rudolf Steiner at all. However, there is support to merge with occult which is acceptable to me. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 'Merge''' with occult.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * and we have this, so maybe just re-write as a page about the academic study of the occult. As it does appear to exist in that sense.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete & then optionally redirect to Occult. This article is not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Occult or Theosophy. This is not a distinct topic that merits a standalone article. Alexbrn (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge then redirect with/to occult.  Dr Strauss   talk  12:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge Given the lack of content in this article, it should be merged with and redirected to occult . SilverplateDelta (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment  FYI.  I assembled much of the potential WP:RS and writers on the topic mentioned here in this section of the article's talk page.  --David Tornheim (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2017 (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.