Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ageless wisdom (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. WjBscribe 17:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ageless wisdom (2nd nomination)

Ageless wisdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article was prodded; prod was contested with a hangon tag rather than just by deleting the prod notice. I'm bringing the debate here for further discussion and copying the prod and hangon reasons below. No opinion from me. NawlinWiki 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Article appears to be blatant self-promotion for Share International, Benjamin Creme and related New Age groups. It has very little/no encyclopedic content or references/citations. The content which does exist is already covered in the Great White Brotherhood article. Quotation section contains several quotes from non-notable groups/figures. The quote from Alice Bailey does not even mention the 'Ageless Wisdom', and I question whether Bailey, Blavatsky, Roerich or Besant ever used the term 'Ageless Wisdom' in this context. (original prod notice from User:Oo7565).
  • Keep I strongly object to this deletion request, because it is not self-promotion, and is a worthy topic, that is not yet listed in Wiki. No organization has a monopoly on the Ageless Wisdom, nor do any make such an absurd claim. There are other similar and related topics ie: Theosophy, Anthrosophy, Rosicrucians, Great White Brotherhood et al, on wiki. This topic should be kept on Wiki and allowed to improve with time. I have made some changes on the description, added/deleted quotations, and rearranged, deleted & added some links, in an attempt to satisfy the complainant. What else is needed to prevent this from being axed? Thanks, Jon33.
  • Delete Article is almost nothing but a "quotes" section and a very lengthy list of external links. No citations. Delete. Goodnightmush 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Quotes & external links have been significantly reduced. It's getting better, please take another look. Jon33 11 April 2007
  • Delete: Per Oo7565. This article has little encyclopedic content or references, and seems to be more of a haven for external links than anything. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Totally rewrote the first two paragraphs in the article and the # of links has been slashed down to four. Jon33
  • Delete This is redundant promotion. This topic is already covered on Wikipedia: please see the Great White Brotherhood and enlightenment/Theosophy-related articles. The only difference is that this article is designed to promote certain commercial religious groups (notice the large external links section) with ties to New-Age medium Benjamin Creme. Algabal 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not a redundant promotion. This topic is not covered already in Wikipedia. TheGreat White Brotherhood is a group of men, not a body of teachings. Theosophical movement had founders.The Ageless wisdom has existed since the dawn of time on this planet and is not a possession of any particular group, nor is it religious material like enlightenment. Furthermore it was not created or started. It is literally "ageless". Jon33 11 April 2007
Yes, the topic is covered. The idea that an ageless body of knowledge has been passed down over the years by great spiritual leaders, right into the lap of a few occultists who lay claim to it, is covered in the Great White Brotherhood article. You seem to be saying that this article describes what the members of the Brotherhood know, rather than the Brothers themselves, but that is within the scope of the GWB article itself. There is still no encyclopedic content or citations in the article, and you have failed to prove that this is a unique religious concept not directly synonymous with enlightenment or the GWB. Just using a different phrase to describe it does not make it different. Algabal 04:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

comment i did not prod this article person who did did not use edit summary so i did a edit summary for themOo7565 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It was me. I wrote the original and Oo75 seconded it. Algabal 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article has no encyclopedic content, and purports to expound upon a topic central to Theosophy and the Great White Brotherhood, but "Ageless wisdom" appears nowhere in either of those articles, which is where it would belong if it were important enough to deserve mention as a topic. Pete.Hurd 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Your assumption that it would, if it were important enough be in either of those articles on Theosophy or the Great White Brotherhood, is mistaken. It is there but in a diffent form. The Theosophical teachings as well as the teachings of the Great White Brotherhood, Alice Bailey and Helena Roerich are what we call the "ageless wisdom" . Just becasue it is not mentioned on the totally unrelated enlightenment page, and partially related Theosophy page does not negate it's existence or significance. Jon33
No, it is there in exactly the same form, just not using the words 'ageless wisdom' and with less of an Alice Bailey/Benjamin Creme promotional motive. Again, the article is redundant. If you wish to expand upon the teachings of Helena Roerich, Madame Blavatsky and Benjamin Creme, do so in their articles. Algabal 04:38, 12 April 2007 (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.