Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higher self

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Higher self[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to have started in December 2008 as a personal essay, with no sources at all. It didn't make a lot of sense at the time. After a year of editing it has been slashed down into a couple of sentences which still don't have sources; the topic is far too diffuse and presumably overlaps greatly with Soul, and for that matter Holy Guardian Angel (in which the term seems to be an alternative way of describing the subject). Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After all the unsourced research synthesis was removed, this article has become a meaninglessly vague substub-style description, which is still unsourced. JIP | Talk 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Slow down please. There's pages of secondary source material here: http://books.google.com/books?id=HrhC0uUclKQC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211#v=onepage&q=&f=false. I've also got secondary sources discussing Monroe's investigations, and seriously doubt there'd be no commentary on related Seth material or on Blavatsky. The articles above barely touch on the higher self. I was planning on building the stub up from sources when time permitted and would like the history to remain intact to assist this. K2709 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Would it help to userfy the article? That would both preserve the history and give you time to add references and such. There is no deadline, so long as some progress is evident. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not really aware what that entails but it sounds like it has potential... K2709 (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article could discuss the Hindu concept alone and be worth keeping. Mitsube (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per K2709. No need to userify when there are enough keep votes. Aren't there more academic sources discussing this topic? Logos5557 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this stub contains no useful information, and the previous longer version is not useful for improvement. If the keep !voters above, or others, want to rewrite the article using WP:RS before the end of this AfD, then great. Otherwise, the article should be deleted so that a new article can be started from a clean slate when someone is willing to put the time in. There is no deadline, but that is no reason to keep a completely useless article around. Verbal chat 09:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to vote to keep for a change. This is a fairly widespread concept throughout New Age belief systems, and surely its part in Hinduism, as one of the world's largest religions, makes it worthy of being mentioned? True, it could do with more information, but the article still adds information to the project, even if it isn't much. Macromonkey (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2010 (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.