Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:B9 hummingbird hovering/Thoughtform

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  delete. --BDD (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering/Thoughtform


WP:STALEDRAFT for 6 years Magioladitis (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * what reasons has the page been nominated for deletion? Tulpa and Thoughtform are in reputable literature and that which is otherwise. If an article has citations it fulfills the criterion. If the entries are found in peer reviewed journals then they are encyclopedic. What is the contention except an ill informed value judgement as to their merit or otherwise? Ask a reputable reference librarian at a library/institution of merit if required to find reputable information. Refer agamic literature, tantric discourse, Transpersonal Psychology, etc. Blessings Beauford aka B9hummingbirdhovering 60.242.36.89 (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note B9 was indef blocked all the way back in 2010 for creating all sorts of flowerey pages that at first glance looke like real, if difficult to decipher, writings on Buddhism, but which upon further examination were actually just elaborate nonsense. As I was involved in getting him blocked I will leave it to the closing admin to determine if they want to block the above IP, but as the comment is self-admitted block evasion it obviously should have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion so I have stricken it out. . Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a WP:STALEDRAFT, and not an article. The actual article exists at Tulpa, and as best as I can gather, this appears to be some earlier version of Tulpa, and Thoughtform before it was merged an redirected.  Based on that, the more general editting population has already modified the content significantly from when this was drafted (oh so long ago). -- Whpq (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.