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. MuZemike 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initiation (Theosophy)

[edit]
Initiation (Theosophy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an unnecessary content fork of Alice A. Bailey of a concept created by her and entirely reliant on her book "Initiation, Human and Solar". The same concept is already discussed on her lengthy and extensive biographical page (which manages to repeat many of her anti-Jewish comments) so a deletion is needed rather than a merge. If this page were considered necessary and encyclopaedic then we would leave the door open to creating separate pages for all the other special terms and concepts she published during her lifetime that she claimed were "telepathically dictated to her". I note that the creator of this page has created other content and point of view forks around the topic of Theosophy. Ash (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've struck the anti-Jewish comment from the nomination to avoid confusion, having raised it now on the Bailey talk page. I agree with your comment about notability; I put quotes around "telepathically dictated to her" in the nomination because it was a quote from the article rather than a sarcastic dismissal.—Ash (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(note) Reincarnation is a commonly used concept, notable outside of Buddhism or Hinduism and not written to "explain" those religions. The same can not be said for Initiation (theosophy) and that is why it is a clear content fork as per the nomination; your argument appears invalid.—Ash (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.