Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theosophy and science

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 delete. Based on the discussion, it seems like there is a split between people who regard this as an exercise in original research/POV-pushing and these who think that it is a coherent notable topic, with at least one editor stating they were fluctuating. But it seems like the "exercise in original research/POV-pushing" side has gone into more detail when analyzing the topic - the keeps by contrast have not really provided a detailed source analysis - and has also the superior numbers. Thus delete - but if people want to reuse the content or sourcing (as some folks have hinted at) they can ask at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theosophy and science[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This isn't an encyclopedic topic, it's an essay more suitable for submission to an academic article. The SYNTH is borne out in the works cited as well, which rely way too heavily on primary sources and on entirely unreliable sources--just look at how many of the publications come from the Theosophical Publishing House, besides a bunch of websites. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the page is more than WP:SYNTH as it has a coherent and encyclopedic focus on the topic, contains many sources other than theosophical, and contains adequate balancing criticism. Although theosophy isn't a religion, this article is similar to pages such as Christianity and science, Buddhism and science, Hinduism and science and others. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is filled with issues and does need some serious attention however the subject is notable and it does not warrant a deletion. EvilxFish (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator of this article SERGEJ2011 has created about thirty other Theosophy articles (Theosophy and visual arts is another recent example), they are mostly unreliable articles sourced to Theosophy publications and riddled with original research. This user has been using Wikipedia to dump his own private research on Theosophy which reads as synth. This has been going on for several years. There are two previous concerns about this on the Fringe theories noticeboard. User creating articles on countless Theosophy books and Theosophy and Science. One user there described this as a form of WP:LONG (long-term abuse). I believe that is accurate. This idea seems to be to use Wikipedia as a dumping ground for Theosophy related topics. The creator of these articles often links to the Theosophy Wiki as a valid source. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also see my recent comment here [1] 81.147.137.6 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having skimmed through many of the article's independent sources, I don't think that SYNTH concerns can be entirely dismissed. While the article does include criticism of theosophy, the attached sources appear to often be either general criticisms of theosophy, or general criticisms of esoteric groups' approaches to science, but rarely do they appear to directly concern themselves with theosophy's approach to science, which is the actual subject of this article. The first citation in the "Criticism of Theosophy" section only briefly mentions science, merely highlighting Theosophy's hostility to it, but not really unpacking its relationship. The next citation only mentions Theosophy and science together in the introduction, and then only to say that theosophy comprises a vulgar pseudoscientific mythology, which isn't really an examination of the subject at hand. Given the absolutely sprawling bibliography, it might help if keep voters identify some sources that do comprise significant coverage of the subject. As it stands, I think it may be most appropriate to selectively merge the article into Theosophy (Blavatskian) (an article which I note at one point claims that there is a dearth of scholarly literature about Theosophy). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Partial merge to one of the main Theosophy articles - although I would hate to have to sort that out. Reading through that article, I found myself bouncing between "this seems a nice summary of existing analysis" and "this is pulling together a boatload of primary sources to make a point" - back and forth, several times. This is really meandering along the line between acceptable summary and unacceptable synthesis, and I think it spends too much time on the wrong side of the tracks. Much of it should go in the light of our synthesis guidelines, and I don't believe the remainder would stand up too well as a separate article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, and WP:FRINGE: a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. I believe this article and others like it exist to promote Theosophy. What the IP says in their delete vote above should be taken seriously. Some more info can be found in this FTN section, as they linked to above. Rosguill's comment also makes some excellent points, ones which, to me, point towards deletion.
Don't let the high number of sources and the intricate formatting fool you - my own look at the sourcing finds that many, perhaps most, are poor. Very many are sourced to Theosophical publications (hence evangelistic and self-promotional), and many others are in Russian and hence pretty much useless to almost all of us. Theosophy Wiki is even used several times.
Granted, there may be some snippets that could be saved, maybe merged. Realistically though, are any of us going to actually wade through all this? I believe our content should "first, do no harm" - on net, this article is misleading our readers about Theosophy and about science. It needs WP:TNT. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2019 (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.