Talk:Perfect Master (Meher Baba)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I see no reason why to keep this in a separate article. The term Perfect Master is widely used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is not a superset or a subset of the Meher Baba article, and so merging is not a good idea. This article describes Meher Baba's definition of the term Perfect Master, which is a fairly broad body of knowledge of interest to very few. The article is more likely a candidate for deletion than a candidate for merging. That said, I'd argue against deletion, if the matter comes up. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the term can be defined in the article about Meher Baba, and does not warrant a separate article. See Perfect Master, which presents sourced information that describe the the term is used in the same context in Sufism and Advanta. Merge is necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that articles cannot be based solely on primary sources. This is needed to comply with WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer not to bring the article to AfD, and would suggest to merge it instead. But if you insist, we can place the article in AfD and seek comments from other editors that way. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As written, the article is more reasonably merged with Perfect Master than Meher Baba. There are important differentiations that would warrant a separate article on Meher Baba's descriptions and definitions, but these are buried in the article -- what the newspeople call 'Burying the Lead'. May I suggest, Jossi, (since at the moment this appears to be little more than a dialog between the two of us) that you give me and a couple of other likely suspects a chance to roll up our sleeves and have a go at making this article better. THEN lets reconsider its fate.

The primary sources tag is well deserved, and I am frankly concerned that the topic is so rarefied that there are not too many NPOV secondary sources. If not enough, then the info is no more valid being merged into any other article, IMO, the article itself might better be deleted.

Can we agree to a few weeks to improve before doing either, however?--Nemonoman (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Take your time. My arguments for merigng are: (a) There is no reason why the material cannot be presented in Meher Baba; (b) If there are no third-party sources independent of the subject, the material can be presented at Meher Baba per WP:SELFPUB, but not in a separate article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi. I think improvements to the article will better define whether to delete or merge, and if to merge what to merge it with. Keep this article on your watch list, and I'll see if I can dig up some independent sources. I have a few likely candidate books and journals in mind.--Nemonoman (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Take your time... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)