![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2022. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The link to Parabrahm is some shitty Australian album, sort of diminutive to the profound cosmology being discussed here.
I am against deleting this article, because I am willing to improve it (if still needed) and cite more sources (I cited another today.) The apparent miscomprehension is probably because of my own writing, not the original, which one cannot necessarily say is more accurate than another cosmological or non-cosmological argument about causality.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 03:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This article has only a single citation, to the source who is unambiguously least independent on the topic of theosophy. Its notability is therefore clearly in question. If improvement cannot be made, then a redirect (e.g. to Helena_Blavatsky#Theosophy) needs to be contemplated. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I have redirected this article to Theosophy of H.P. Blavatsky, the Causeless cause is there explained in detail under the section called Three Fundamental Propositions. We do not need this separate article which has no third party sources on it. GreenUniverse ( talk) 22:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
After the first deletion proposal, I never got around to adding secondary sources, though many or dozens exist, I just don't have the interest now. But, look above, the page had been redirected before. Maybe you could move the material to where it once was redirected, and if not, then at least just redirect it to such a page.-- dchmelik ( t| c) 05:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2022. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The link to Parabrahm is some shitty Australian album, sort of diminutive to the profound cosmology being discussed here.
I am against deleting this article, because I am willing to improve it (if still needed) and cite more sources (I cited another today.) The apparent miscomprehension is probably because of my own writing, not the original, which one cannot necessarily say is more accurate than another cosmological or non-cosmological argument about causality.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 03:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This article has only a single citation, to the source who is unambiguously least independent on the topic of theosophy. Its notability is therefore clearly in question. If improvement cannot be made, then a redirect (e.g. to Helena_Blavatsky#Theosophy) needs to be contemplated. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I have redirected this article to Theosophy of H.P. Blavatsky, the Causeless cause is there explained in detail under the section called Three Fundamental Propositions. We do not need this separate article which has no third party sources on it. GreenUniverse ( talk) 22:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
After the first deletion proposal, I never got around to adding secondary sources, though many or dozens exist, I just don't have the interest now. But, look above, the page had been redirected before. Maybe you could move the material to where it once was redirected, and if not, then at least just redirect it to such a page.-- dchmelik ( t| c) 05:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)