Talk:Ascended master/Archive 2

Using anandgholap.net as a source or link

This site is the personally registered site of Anand Gholap of Pune, India. He has a disclaimer that he is not responsible for the use of anything on his site (http://www.anandgholap.net/Terms_Of_Use.htm). He makes no special claims of expertise or any affiliation. A number of texts and images from books are on his site but copyright status is uncertain as he does not have specific permission to make these public domain but has added these on the basis of his understanding of copyright law which is not the same as Wikipedia's. His site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be used as a reference or link for any article apart from (possibly) an article about himself.—Ash (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Using ascension-research.org as a source

The site claims to have no affiliations with any organization but is registered by Allen Buresz of Natural Health L.P. in Virginia. Checking the Virginia company records online, no such limited partnership has been registered as active. Consequently the registration is suspect with apparently false information. The site appears to be another rambling self-published and self-promotional site with no claim as to status or validity. It does not meet the guidance for wp:reliable sources and should not be used as a source, ever, by anyone.—Ash (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge here. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Spiritual Hierarchy appears to be almost completely lacking in third-party-sourced material. The article's lead states that the topic "represents the concept of a group of self-realised Masters of the Ancient Wisdom" (Masters of the Ancient Wisdom being the parent topic of this article), and most of the article is about "cosmic beings" which it states are "Ascended Master[s] who [have] never incarnated in a human body".

I am therefore proposing that whatever third-party material (if any) exists in that article be merged here (or a simple redirect if none can be found), per:

1. Lack of third-party sourcing, and thus WP:Notability
2. WP:MERGE#Rationales #2 (Overlap) & #4 (Context)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Object Third party sources have now been added to the Spiritual Hierarchy article. Also, the Spiritual Hierarchy article is too long an article to merge with this article. Keraunos (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant: (i) the third party content is vestigial (and poorly cited, besides) and (ii) it is actually on the topic of Masters of the Ancient Wisdom (Theosophy), NOT on a separate topic of "Spiritual Hierarchy". As such, it does not even demonstrate that the latter topic even WP:ITEXISTS, let alone that it has any notability. (iii) As I am proposing that only "whatever third-party material (if any) exists in that article be merged here", the amount of material needing merging is very very short indeed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: in order for Spiritual Hierarchy to survive it needs to be demonstrated (i) how this topic differs from Ascended master (and Masters of the Ancient Wisdom (Theosophy)), and (ii) that there is significant reliable third-party coverage of this non-overlapping topic area. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge. Massive amount of overlap. Theosophy is notable, but our articles only need to give a brief outline of tenets, ideally from independent sources, with pointers to further reading. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge, per above. The fact that the other article is long is not really a problem, if most of that content shouldn't even be on Wikipedia. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge: The material that is sourced overlaps entirely with that of this article. The bulk of the material is unsourced and unsourceable, and can be deleted without any loss of improtant information. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per Dominus Vobisdu. bobrayner (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge, the sourcing is quite poor, restricted to a fairly shallow pool of primary sources (in the same way the Bible would be primary), there's some personal websites and more than one external image cited as a source, and too much of the "referencing" is actually commentary. Looks like a massive pile of overly-detailed Theosophy cruft that has been synthesized to produce a truly terrible page. Gut much of the content, use third-party sources, take out the incredible level of unnecessary detail and focus on any third-party sources that indicate an actual impact. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.