Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Masters

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. JForget 12:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Masters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from a rare mention on Google News based on the odd doubtful website, there are no real articles on Google News. The article has been based on a handful of self published sources, mainly a few personal websites and consequently appears to fail the guidance of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Ash (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems to be a disarranged collection of miscellaneous information.--//Microcell// 18:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete, There are 15,200 references to "Cosmic Masters" on Google. It is a concept that originated in the 1950s in UFO religions and has been widely used since 1977 when the audio message alleged to have been received from the Ashtar Galactic Command appeared on an English TV station; it is used in some groups adherent to the Ascended Master Teachings (a group of religions based on Theosophy)--a group of religions that has existed since the 1930s; and in many New Age religions and philosophies as well as in the philosophies of Timothy Leary and Robert Anton Wilson since the mid-1970s.

The concept of "Cosmic Masters" is also widely used in science fiction, such as in Dr. Who, who is regarded as one of the Time Lords, a group of Cosmic Masters who are able to manipulate time and space. Keraunos (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) Actually a decent Google News search like this one, shows 22 articles of which only 8 are since 2000. The only articles of relevance shown are actually about the Aetherius Society which already looks sufficient without this further article which, if anyone was bothered to wade through it, anything of value that was not unnecessary duplication could be merged back into that article. Saying there are 15,200 references, when actually the vast majority of these would be random word matches, is rather exaggerating the matter.—Ash (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote to Delete. There is no using having an article separate from the Aetherius Society article if I am not to be allowed to utilize the websites and books I need as references to write a comprehensive article. Might as well just forget it. Keraunos (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is an utter piece of shit, but the concept seems to be a valid, notable one. There do seem to be reliable sources which discuss the concept. The existance of the article is not an endorsement that there are cosmic masters, but the concept seems like a real, notable one and based on the number of sources, I think a good article could be written about it. This article is NOT it, but deletion is not clean-up. I see no reason why a dedicated editor could not rewrite this using the sources out there. --Jayron32 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept at the moment appears to be to pluck every mention of the words "Cosmic Masters" off the internet (especially the popular culture section) regardless of shifting context. If the concept is as used by the Aetherius Society (which is already an overly lengthy Wikipedia entry considering it is entirely based on the "revelations" of a London taxicab driver), then the concept can be covered there without creating this redundant page.—Ash (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge with Aetherius Society article if the intent is to discuss this aspect of their cosmology. If the concept being described is more generalized than that, there are already articles like Ascended master which address it. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've decided to change my position. This article appears to be a simple content fork from the Aetherius Society article and seems to serve no other purpose than to act as a potential platform for the continuation of that forking. The very little information that is contained here is already present in the Aetherius article IMO. The article thus fails WP:NOTE in that it fails to show why its subject is demonstrably different from an existing article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would appear to be the Aetherius Society's mildly UFO-ized version of ascended masters, and as such might be worth a brief mention on that page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Smerdis of Tlon's argument.Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.