Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Body thetan - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JamieS93 (talk | contribs) at 19:20, 22 December 2008 (fix closure formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:20, 22 December 2008 by JamieS93 (talk | contribs) (fix closure formatting)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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

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.