Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raëlian cosmology

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 merge to Raëlian beliefs and practices. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raëlian cosmology

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

Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant secondary source coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. The vast majority of the article is cited only to primary sources. Most of the article is cited directly to "Rael", a primary source and conflict of interest source. See also relevant prior AFDS, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raëlian Embassy for Extraterrestrials, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sensual Meditation, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raëlian Church membership estimates. -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main Raëlian article. Certainly it's appropriate there. (And why does that redirect to Raëlian beliefs and practices?) BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to the main Raëlian article. Looking at the article, it doesn't cite many outside sources, so the original has a point. However the Raëlians themselves are notable and so would their beliefs in cosmology by extension. The material should at least be merged, but there is so much here it is likely to get broken out again, which seems to be what happened before. I don't think this situation is actually caused by a lack of extant reliable sources so much as the fact that the article did not reference them. So another option would be to find some; that would be necessary if the article is to be kept. Merging will make the main article very long, which is why it is broken out like it is. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased that some Wikipedians still have the word "Merge" in their vocabulary :DKmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 15:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this article from other pages and found it very useful in studying strange new cosmologies. I think it is too good and complete and well referenced to simply merge. I was so glad to find it. --Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:36, 6 December 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.