| Revision as of 18:38, 22 December 2008 editArakunem (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,059 edits →Body thetan: K← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:08, 22 December 2008 edit undoEl Sandifer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,527 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|F}} | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''Speedy close as keep'''. Querrelous and ] nomination. ] (]) 19:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :{{la|Body thetan}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Body thetan}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Line 10: | Line 17: | ||
| *'''Keep'''. A little OR on my part suggests that their belief in this topic is pretty much at the very core of Scientology. Whatever one's thoughts on Scientology as a whole, this to me rises above the standard of cruftyness. ]] 18:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. A little OR on my part suggests that their belief in this topic is pretty much at the very core of Scientology. Whatever one's thoughts on Scientology as a whole, this to me rises above the standard of cruftyness. ]] 18:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Revision as of 19:08, 22 December 2008
Body thetan
- 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 Speedy close as keep. Querrelous and pointy nomination. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Body thetan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Scientology-cruft, I'm not seeing any non-trivial, reliable third-party sources for this. Much of it is cited to Hubbard's own writings and tapes, which are primary sources. The "Secrecy" section mentions some third-party sources, but a careful look indicates that these sources are all about OT III in general and its surrounding secrecy, not the specific concept of "body thetans."
Google Books shows 3 hits for "body thetan," all trivial references of a line or two. Google Scholar shows just 2 hits, one of which is a primary source and one of which is not reliable (holysmoke.org). There doesn't appear to have ever been any substantial discussion of the concept of "body thetans" in any sources except Hubbard's own writings. *** Crotalus *** 17:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - vastly important Scientology concept at the higher levels, and arbitrarily declaring non-Scientology sources "not reliable" is not good editorial judgement. Are you sure it's appropriate for you to be going on a Scientology-related deletion spree in the midst of your participation in a Scientology arbitration case? - David Gerard (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. A little OR on my part suggests that their belief in this topic is pretty much at the very core of Scientology. Whatever one's thoughts on Scientology as a whole, this to me rises above the standard of cruftyness. Arakunem 18:38, 22 December 2008 (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.