This article was nominated for deletion on 14 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

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) 08:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site has no official affiliations and makes no such claims. It appears to exist in order to make money from subscribers, donations and the sale of books and CDs. The site appears to also promote Monroe Julius Shearer and Carolyn Louise Shearer as "anointed representatives". The site consequently appears to be a straightforward scam and should not be used as an External link as it fails WP:SPAM or used as a reference as it fails WP:RS.—Ash (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site fails WP:RS, WP:SPAM, WP:ELNO and WP:SPS as it is a promotional website for Elizabeth Clare Prophet. The site promotes and sells her books, CD and courses. The site cannot be considered a reliable source for evidence and is not independent. It should not be used as a reference.—Ash (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at the sources in this article shows a complete bias to publications by organizations devoted to promoting Theosophy. To ignore all the articles which debunk the claims and quotes from people who have been in "telepathic" contact with "Masters" (such as Blavatsky and Creme) appears deliberate bias and makes this Wikipedia article completely non-encyclopaedic.—Ash (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the identical section you posted in another religion article [1], an identical response: This is not a science article with claims to be debunked, it's an article about religious beliefs. Religion articles often use sources from believers in the religion. For example, it's likely that there are no non-Catholic sources supporting descriptions of Catholic beliefs. Some of those beliefs, if viewed from the viewpoint of science, are quite unsupportable. Are you suggesting there should be scientific sources used in Christianity articles to debunk the resurrection? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To write off the whole article, is a bit rash. Why dispute the entirety of an article based upon sources that include Kuthumi in their work? As Kuthumi was an intrinsic aspect in relation to the founding of the Theosophical movement, it would only be natural that many submissions would include Theosophical literature. This name has been utilized in various movements and some, (not all) are listed. Each and everyone involved with Kuthumi could and should be listed. Comprehensive and inclusive articles offer more information to those seeking to learn more. If whatever is added to Wikipedia listings relate in whatever way to the topic, doesn't it add something valuable to the discourse of such a topic?

On the question of bias, might the neutrality also be in question in regards to the one raising the dispute? It would seem that one claiming there is nothing encyclopaedic about the article, is already hostile to the subject matter at hand. Clearly from the explanation of the dispute, the real issue coming to the fore is about the existence of Masters and telepathy in general. If "all the articles" which debunk telepathy and Masters have been ignored, there is no reason why they cannot be included. By all means, add the publications which one feels might give the article the balance a Veteran Editor requires.

- (Lvx1313 (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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. There is no guarantee that texts or images he includes are faithful reproductions or correctly sourced. 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) 16:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed some of the external links that duplicate links in the references.—Ash (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims these names are used interchangeably but no source is given that states this clearly.—Ash (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that the link "levels of consciousness" leads to a very different concept than the one intended in the article. It leads to a Western medical model of physical brainwave states, of which the "highest" listed is nothing more than a normal waking state. But anyone who has read "higher consciousness" literature of this kind knows that normal human consciousness, far from being the "highest" state, is on the contrary only the baseline or beginning. Therefore this link is inaccurate, and I doubt it was created by the original writer. Chillowack (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One would think the issues of parentage, date and place of birth, death, marriage, etc. should be addressed, even if to say what is not known. 216.165.224.81 (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No third party sources cover the concept of Kuthumi. Most of the article is quoting from one book and alot is also unsourced, the article has been like this for 5 years. Redirected to the Ascended master article. GreenUniverse (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]