Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akashic Records

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've read this page three times, and I have no idea what it's about. Whatever it is, it seems to be some kind of bizarro New Age concept with this article written in a very POV manner. Thunderbunny 03:45, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I've been fussing about with cleaning it up. See the beginnings of a rewrite I've been attempting at User:Spectatrix/temp/. In any case, very little has been accomplished in its 11 months on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, so it's high time that it's either rewritten or outright deleted. Being deleted will merely mean that my rewrite will be put on the backburner compared to some of my other projects. Spectatrix 04:15, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an important spirituality/religion/New Age concept, and the article actually isn't all that bad, especially when compared with its class of peers. A few attributions and "is said to be"s in place of a few "is"s, and we're basically there. Now, if you want a true New Age POV mess, see The Mother. And if "considered bizarro by some segment of the population" is the standard, there are hundreds of articles in Category:New Age, Category:New religious movements, and even Category:Religion that can be brought here next, followed by Category:Software engineering, if you catch my drift. --Gary D 04:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: my main sticking point in rewriting the article (for it does need to be reorganized in addition to be made NPOV) has been finding some good solid historical references to the Akashic Records. Though I've no doubt it's a very old concept, I'd like some actual documents to point to that mention Akasha, or at the very least the concepts now embodied in the phrase "Akashic Records". Spectatrix 05:02, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
  • Keep, with major changes. I agree with Spectatrix: article claims historical evidence goes back to 7500 BC. Who makes this claim? Edgar Cayce? Madam Balvatsky? And what is the supposed evidence? And as others have mentioned, needs NPOV work; article is a series of "factual" statements that would probably be better characterized as "religious" or "speculative". Gwimpey 05:20, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but cut drastically. It can be reduced to a single sentence, maybe two, explaining what these records are claimed to be and who claims it. Then add an external link. (And BTW there are no solid historical references to the records, they were invented, like so much else, by Mme. Blavatsky.) Jumbo 13:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I really think this is another way to say "Forbidden Knowledge" and such. Merge useful content as a small section in the article on New Age Religion. A particular point of speculative apocrypha that then goes off to gobble up every culture's version of the dreamtime is a characteristic pseudo-historical move in New Age. This article alledges that it's true, that it's fact. Geogre 14:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • While you are indeed correct in evaulating the pseudo-historical tendencies of New Agers, I still feel as though this topic is deserving of its own article because it is a well-known topic amongst New Agers, pagans, and players of Mage: The Ascension (damn my gaming geek tendencies... lol). However, until I can find sufficient reference material to write an article with some real meat to it (as opposed to the fluff in the current article), I would support a merge and redirect with/to New Age. Spectatrix 17:10, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
    • Keep: Excellent rewrite. More can be done, but more can always be done. Acceptably placed in general knowledge now. Fine work. Geogre 02:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This actually was an important topic for the Theosophy movement of the 19th cent., and spread from there into contemporary New Age culture. It's become a standard phrase in a lot of mystical and fantastical contexts; I vote to keep, and send to Pages Needing Attention. -FZ 18:03, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Terribly POV. As it stands, delete. There may be an encyclopaedic article on the subject, but this isn't it. Fire Star 14:34, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Good point- it does need pretty major changes, and may well not be worth keeping unless somebody wants to fix it quickly & use any of what's there. The original article is somewhat misleading. I amend my vote to an abstain. -FZ 16:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just did some work on the POV. It's not perfect but I think it's a reasonably good summary of a modern spiritual belief. It could use some trimming though. LeeHunter 02:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: content is still POV, factually dubious and meandering. If recreated, it should be at Akashic Record, which currently redirects to this article. -Sean Curtin 20:26, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Don't delete ideas that people believe in simply because they stretch credulity. Leave descriptive information in wikipedia. This is an interesting idea. Science Fiction authors use it in conjunction with Everett many-worlds interpretation for short story plots. I came across the term "akashic" just a few days ago and I was delighted to be able to find a semidetailed explanation with references in wikipedia. -Spiderly 21:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • My vote only reflects the sorry state of the article itself, not the subject of it. The concept that everything one does is observed and recorded in another spiritual plane is widespread, from the 94th psalm to the Bodhisattva Akasagarbha. It is just this presentation of the concept that isn't of sufficient calbre to keep around. If someone were to rewrite it properly, I would change my vote. Fire Star 00:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Can you give an example of language that specifically draws your objections? -Spiderly 18:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent cleanup- Keep. -FZ 12:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akashic_Records&oldid=357488780"