Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahman Consciousness

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 of the debate was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creations of Peterklutz (talk · contribs)

• Transcendental state of Consciousness, Cosmic Consciousness, God Consciousness, Unity Consciousness, Brahman Consciousness.

The author has created a number of articles whose only text is: "Transcendental Consciousness is a unique state of consciousness created i.a. through the practice of Transcendental Meditation, as taught by His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi". Unencyclopedic - Wikipedia is not a place to promote "transcendental meditation" or state their claims as a fact. Delete all. - Mike Rosoft 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and radically Change Before 85.30.186.206 hijacked this page, it was a redirect to samadhi a unitive state of consciousness. I say turn it into a disambig page- with three definitions: TM's version, the book "Cosmic Consciousness" by Richard Bucke and just a general definition of "oneness" or something with a link to samadhi or enlightenment. I have changed my vote BTW Sethie 04:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Apparent from the article text, they are placeholders to be filled by the creator and/or any other person knowledgeable in the subject. By removing these placeholders the very purpose of wikipedia appears to be defeated. Also evident by the wording this is not a promotion of any particular form of mediationm, but simply to extol an analytical concepts used within TM. At this time I would strongly suggest that Sethie activities vis-a-vis TM related articles are monitored. The reason being several repeated deletions of sections where I have tried to explain some phenomenon related to His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs)
• Delete All for now. Let the author recreate when/if s/he actually has something to put in them. The one line that is in each article now is unacceptably POV, so there's nothing salvageable. Fan1967 13:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom and others. Paddles 16:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all and revert edits by Peterklutz and 85.30.186.206, as he (I'm safely assuming they're the same person) has added this stuff to disambigs and other pages. -- Kicking222 16:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all in those named in the nomination per Fan1967. I see nothing wrong with having an article about, say, Cosmic Consciousness, but if one removes the POV expression, then there's nothing left to keep. --BillC 17:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• (1) The fact that Seethie does not understand the scope for an article about different state of consciousness confirms this man's fantastic ignorance about a subject he has made himself the unsolicitated censor of. (2) Rosoft is a self-proclaimed nihilist. If these two gentlemen are serious in promoting the expansion of knowledge - they should not only support the continued existence of these stub-like articles, but promote elaboration on them - not censor them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Wikipedia is for encylopedic documentation, not proselytizing. There is nothing encyclopedic in any of these stubs. Rosoft's beliefs are irrelevant. Fan1967 21:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect all to transcendental meditation. These are dicdefs of the same thing and do not appear worthy of separate articles. Grandmasterka 04:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete most, Keep Cosmic Consciousness which is a perfectly good term having nothing necessarily to do with 'transcendental meditation'. It was coined, or at least extensively used as early as 1905 by a Canadian doctor, Richard Maurice Bucke, in his book Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind which was republished in 1942 and is currently still in print. Over the years those who I have met who have read the book consider the topic quite notable, although the current article does not really address anything. After this is over, I would be happy to write an appropriate article. Bejnar 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment After the AfD is over, you're free to write a different article with the same title. The title is the only thing salvageable from this one. Fan1967 21:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per Fan1967 and comments. Also revert edits by Peterklutz and 85.30.186.206, per Kicking222. Armon 14:39, 3 June 2006 (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.