Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egregore

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egregore[edit]

Cruft lacking WP:RS. Leibniz 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched the Oxford English Dictionary. Could be luftcraft. scope_creep 23:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's luftcraft? Perhaps it is Lovecraftcruft. Leibniz
Could well be, its got that connatation about it, summat out of At the mountains of madness. scope_creep 00:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Sounds like a hoax/joke or OR to me... Spawn Man 00:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a hoax but a fairly well known concept in occultism dating back at least to the 19th century. Google yields 40,000 hits for either the spelling "egregore" or "egregore". According to the more coherent sources, the concept of egregore developed in the interpretation of the Book of Enoch. A number of historically prominent occultists have written about it, including Eliphas Levi. I encountered it myself in the works of Valentin Tomberg. -- Shunpiker 07:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment - I reworked the article to make better use of references and to exclude some of the more contentious material. The result is more of an outline than a proper article, so I have tagged it as a stub. In making these edits, I found the article for grigori -- which is another transliteration of the word that became egregor/egregore, and describes a distinct but related tradition. I still believe this article should be kept on its own. However, I could live with a redirect to grigori with a merge of the contents of this article. -- Shunpiker 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not paper. Though the subject is a little obscure, it is of sufficient interest to include in an online encyclopedia. Needs sources listed, though. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember who said "But it's not toilet paper either." Obscurity is not the issue, verifiability is. For starters, the very first line, stating that it is an Old English word, seems to be patently false. Leibniz 13:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too true. However, I think we have two separate questions. Is the subject encyclopedic? Yes. Does this particular article need a thorough going over? Absolutely. Hopefully, we can engage the creator in improving the artiocle instead of just scrapping it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BOLLOCKS. The only google results for "Gaetan Delaforgem" are related to this term. Demiurge 13:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Keep now that someone has cleaned it up, added references and removed all the speculation. Demiurge 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:BOLLOCKS might apply if Gaetan Delaforgem was the only source of this concept. But it has already been demonstrated that it's not the case. The fact that Delaforgem has only published one Google-indexed paper has absolutely no bearing on the validity of "Egregore" as a subject -- although it does make him a less than desirable reference. There's consensus that this article needs cleanup and better references, but WP:BOLLOCKS does not apply. -- Shunpiker 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This likely is an actual term used in esotericism - at least somebody took the time to write an equally vague German-language Wikipedia article about it. But it doesn't look too widely-used or notable based on the sparse and maybe not exactly reliable sources that are provided. Sandstein 15:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs additional (non-internet) sources, but it is well written, informative and interesting. At worst, the article should be moved to Wiktionary. LittleOldMe 18:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no solid reason to remove this article. It is an open, free and decent exchange of information on a concept that is not invented out of nowhere but has been on for quite some time now.

The concept is also not new, similar to Tulpa in Tibetan mysticism and has been used in numerous works of fiction as well (See Tupla entry).

In fact this is a good platform for any scientific results through publications to add their results on this subject, viewing from an unbiased, open scietific mind.

Therefore this article should stay on the page and not be deleted.

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.