Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual science by Martinus

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. Calls for the recreation or undeletion of another article are off-base here: take that to WP:DRV. Until that is allowed, I don't think it's appropriate to even consider a merge... but on top of that, if you look at these articles, they aren't appropriate merge material anyway, and there are no reliable sources. So, having discarded the impossible suggestion, the result of the debate is delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritual science by Martinus

Spiritual science by Martinus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Walled garden of irredeemably POV and unsourced/OR articles advertising the work of a non-notable Christian mystic. See previous AfD covering parts of the same walled garden at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Third Testament (these articles were also recreated recently and have been speedied; the main Martinus article has apparently been created several times since 2002). Multiple nomination, covering also:

Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Associated redirects at this time
    1. Spiritual science - 1
    2. Livets Bog - 1, 2, 3, 4
    3. cosmic analyses - 1, 2
    4. world picture - none
    5. cosmic symbols - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 GRBerry 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Delete all No evidence of any independent notice of any of the books or of the term in the articles. No critical reviews, etc... No evidence of any secondary sources discussing the term, as required by WP:NEO in order to have an article on the term. GRBerry 14:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not true. For instance this is mentioned under the article ”Martinus Thomsen”: “A Danish author and natural scientist “Kurt Christiansen” made a deep investigation which is published in two massive vol. entitled: “Martinus og hans livsværk Det Tredie Testamente” (only printed in Danish) in order to investigate Martinus private life and actions.” Martinus work contains 43 books, 8000 pages of spiritual literature being translated to 19 languages until this day and in progess, (but till not mentioned here on Wikipedia. I don’t know why, but perhaps because it is not according to some traditional Christian views, because Martinus explains the principle of reincarnation)

I find it quite difficult to understand why to delete. I have folloved the POV line after line, and I therefore asked future perfect which wants to delete it all, but I had no answer and no explanation yet. In order to prepare this articles again – which I already spend days preparing – I have to know exactly which parts are not seen as “reliable”. I want to make a presentation of this work which is totally unknown to the English speaking people.

How to do it without mentioning the intention of the content of his collected work, giving some minor examples and mentioning the most remarkable postulates made here, marking them as exactly this “the author claim..”? All postulates might be right or wrong, but how to know if they’re removed before any chance of testing?

Ps. Some might believe this is some Christian minority etc. But no. There is no membership, sect, organisation etc living out principles from the teachings of Martinus. The teaching here shows that everything is very good (all details of life) but that only acts of love gives positive result. There does exist a Martinus Institute in Denmark with the task of preserving and translating his work, but that is their task. I have nothing to do with them (!), I’m a private person who discovered Martinus literature and cosmic analyses and therefore wanting to share the existence of this work. I do understand that the work here is quite unusual, and therefore I understand that I need to explain a little in order not to be misunderstood. No, this is not some craziness, and you’ll all find out if you took the time to investigate instead of prejudging. Martinus might be wright and he might be wrong, but it certainly can’t be know without a test, and the postulates are certainly not un-important…

Friendly wishes, Søren Jensen --S.jensen 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Recreate Martinus Thomsen (seems to be marginally notable, e.g. has articles in more than five Wikipedias, including Danish since 2004) and merge all in this article.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Recreate and merge seems the obvious course , if there are external references to any of this.DGG 23:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Many quotations by Martinus shows that absolutely doesn’t want to have any followers, any organisation in his name etc. Modern man is a free thinker, that is the only way forward now, a critical approach is the only way to create one own opinion, create real individual consciosness. A person being partly or more inspired by these thoughts should not be classified as a “follower”, as if anything connected to spiritual matters must be a matter of belief. In this case it is not.

People can belief in modern physics without being classified as a follower of Newton too. If there is something true in this matter, that would not make anyone discovering the same truth equal to “followers”, especially in this case because the author doesn’t want to be followed, and actually dammed any kind of religion, tradition, mystics, sects, “students or teachers” etc in his name as a obvious obstacle that would hinder any real free consciousness – which he said to be the aim of his work: real human consciousness (meaning intelligence and empathy working together in harmony). He adds that any individual (including himself) can be nothing but a tiny detail in the wholeness of life.

As far as I know the Martinus Institute in Denmark could be said to be bound in opinion because of its task to preserve and translate his books but all the other websites I have found are created by independent individuals. For instance: http://www.deathisanillusion.com Or http://www.vivotopia.org/eng/aboutus/ Here is a link displaying different public Danish newspapers telling about a new private exhibition about Martinus’ work. http://www.martinus-on-tour.info/1.php?id=6&page1=Omtale&sprog=da you don’t speak Danish but tell me if you want me to translate some text from the article. I’m Danish (but living in Sweden). --S.jensen 07:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Søren Jensen

ENGLISH REFERENCE - EXAMPLE I took a look at the neutral preferences and found this quite strong reference considering the English speaking readers: Paul Brunton. He was (as you can read in wikipedia) one of the world most famous authors concerning mystics, religion etc. working as a journalist and mystic himself he visited the real mystics of these days. Paul Brunton visited Martinus first time in 1948 which is documented by Paul Bruntons own words in the Danish 1952 edition of his book: "The Secret Path"). He visited Martinus again in 1950 and during the months may to aug. 1950 (4 month) he stayed with his wife at Martinus Institut Denmark where he was tought by Martinus (!).

A Danish documentary: “Martinus som vi husker ham” contents a very positive description on Martinus written by Paul Brunton. He visited Martinus again in 1956 and made a prescript for one of Martinus book: Mankind and the world picture. This prescribt (along with the book) can be read in the Magazine “Cosmos Special Issue", 1990-4. BUT in the printed final edition of the book it is brought without the preface by Brunton because of a decision not to introduce the work of Martinus through other known people. Martinus

Is this enough reference? I cant add it and prepare the Third Testament website, because it is deleted. What do you want me to do?

Friendly wishes, Søren Jensen--S.jensen 19:56, 20 May 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.