Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devachan (2nd nomination)

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devachan

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Non notable Theosophy article with no reliable sources. No independent references exist outside of Theosophy books or websites. H.P. Blavatsky and Leadbeater are not WP:RS but these are the only sources cited. No historians have covered this topic. I believe the article is not notable and should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In universe character who hasn't received coverage by independent reliable sources of any sort of depth Big Money Threepwood (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a "character". Please take a little more time with articles WP:BEFORE !voting. Jfire (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell, since no independent sources exist, and all we have is someone's interpretation of primary sources Big Money Threepwood (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is discussed in Campbell, Bruce F. (1980). Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical Movement. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-03968-1. Here's is a selective excerpt:

Development is conceived in Theosophy as continuing after death, in two out-of-incarnation states called kama-loka and devachan. After death the individual puts off his physical body and lives in his astral body until the force has become exhausted which has been generated by the emotions of the just-completed life. His movement from the physical plane is a movement into the plane of kama-loka, or plane of desire... When the emotions of the immediately past life have been dissipated, a second death occurs and the astral body falls away. The individual finds himself in his mental body and in the lower mental world. This realm is called the Devachanic state, and corresponds to the idea of heaven. Devachan is "paradise," a place of bliss and supreme felicity, and "logic tells us that no sorrow or even a shade of pain can be experienced therein." In devachan the upper triad functions solely as a mind "clothed in a very ethereal vesture which it will shake off when the time comes to return to earth."

It is discussed in more depth in Chajes, Julie (2019-01-02). Recycled Lives: A History of Reincarnation in Blavatsky's Theosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-090914-7. and the fifth chapter of Harlass, Ulrich (2021-07-19). Die orientalische Wende der Theosophischen Gesellschaft: Eine Untersuchung der theosophischen Lehrentwicklungen in der Zeit zwischen den Hauptwerken Alfred Percy Sinnetts (in German). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-069883-1. I don't speak German, but here's an excerpt from an English-language review of the latter book:

Similarly, Harlass discusses devachan as a concept developed in conversation with Spiritualist debates. It was positioned along with kama loka (often kama loca in Sinnett) as two distinct places. While davachan was conceived as the place where one waits for one’s next incarnation, kama loka was identified as the place where various “entities” reside that are not subject to reincarnation. These entities were understood to be those present at séances. Direct communication with the dead was explicitly rejected. Again, Harlass succeeds in describing the debate over devachan as embedded in contemporary discussions that were primarily concerned with perceived discrepancies in the Theosophical doctrine of reincarnation. Devachan was then positioned against these critics as an allegedly “Oriental” concept, particularly the position of Kingsford and Maitland. The “Oriental” here depicts a discursive strategy by which Sinnett, Blavatsky, and also Row and Malavankar claim exclusivity, as Harlass asserts.

These sources show that this concept has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and hence meets WP:GNG and is eligible for a standalone article. That aside, I think the topic is perhaps better covered in a more general article covering Theosophist beliefs about the afterlife and reincarnation. But the editorial decision of how to best cover a notable topic can be discussed in a venue other than AfD. Jfire (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated above, an easy Keep; Goggle otherwise would have pointed me to the hair salon. Sparafucil (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two more reliable, independent, third-party sources:

McClelland, Norman C. (2010). "Devachan". Encyclopedia of Reincarnation and Karma. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. pp. 75–76. ISBN 9780786448517.
Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (2006). "Reincarnation and Karma // Anthroposophy". Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Brill Academic Publishers. p. 87. ISBN 978-90-04-15231-1.--Pisnyy Mykola (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the sources mentioned above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources provided meet GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 28 January 2024 (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.