Coulomb Affair: No reliable sources have been put on the article in over a decade.  The German Wiki article also has no references so wouldn't be of help.  The links in the "External links" section are all unreliable.  Even the Theosophy Wiki which is unreliable cannot provide a single independent source [60] , so you know this topic has not been covered outside of the field of Theosophy.  There is no academic coverage or reception of this topic from historians.  The only reliable source I have found is from J. Barton Scott but one source is not enough to have an article.  Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : multiple sources listed in 'Literature' and 'External links' by different authors and publishers, both contemporary (19th century) and much later (20th century).  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 22:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment None of those sources are reliable unfortunately, they are all written by Theosophists or link to the main Theosophy website as does theosociety.org.  http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/ fails WP:RS .  We can't cite biased sources written by fringe advocates WP:Fringe .  Are there any neutral academics or scholars that have discussed this topic in detail?  I am not seeing any mainstream academic coverage.  One of the books cited in the "literature" section is "Hartmann, Franz: Wahrheit und Dichtung, Die Theosophische Gesellschaft und der Wunderschrank von Adyar . o.O. 1906", no page numbers are given.  Looks like WP:OR to me, but Franz Hartmann was a Theosophist.  We wouldn't cite this source.  It look's to me like someone has just dumped those sources to pad out the article.  Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 22:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This was a notable event in the history of Theosophy, and it has been studied by historians.  It is covered on pages 87–95 of Campbell's Ancient Wisdom Revived [61] , which summarizes the importance thusly: In order to comprehend the larger significance of the Coulomb affair and the report of the S.P.R.-the reasons the controversy drew so much attention in both India and Europe-it is necessary to examine the symbolic position of Theosophy in Asia and in the West...  The year of the Coulomb affair was the year in which the forces of change and those for perpetuation of the colonial situation struggled with the symbolic issue of the Ilbert Bill, a measure to give Indians greater power over their own affairs.  The issue inflamed passions on both sides and was associated with deep Anglo-Indian hostility against the natives and those Europeans who sympathized with them.  The Coulomb affair reflected as well the antagonism between Theosophists and Christian missionaries.  Theosophical support of Hindu religions was counterproductive to the Christians efforts to evangelize.  Madame Coulomb found a receptive publisher when she offered her letters to a missionary college journal.  A second source from a historian of religion which covers the topic in detail is Scott, J. Barton.  "Miracle Publics: Theosophy, Christianity, and the Coulomb Affair" .  History of Religions .  49 (2): 172–196.  doi : 10.1086/649525 .  ISSN 0018-2710 .  Here is the summary of this paper, from its introduction: With an eye to recent scholarship that theorizes the contemporary relations of religion, publicity, and secularity, this essay returns to an earlier moment in the unfolding of global modernity: the colonial and occult late nineteenth century.  It analyzes documents from the Coulomb Affair of 1884-85 in order to ask how various participants in that scandal conceived of the public sphere and its purchase upon the truthful, the divine, and the real--a complex of concerns distilled by the Theosophical slogan, "There is no religion higher than truth."  In particular, I ask how Theosophists and Christian missionaries negotiated the ethic of openness so characteristic of the affair and, arguably, of modern publics more broadly.  These sources demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.  Jfire ( talk ) 00:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there isn't enough secondary material to make an article about this.  Maybe someone could throw a line in the Theosophy article, but that's about all the notability I can find.  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 00:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The sources presented by Jfire are convincing.  Plus, the German page has 2 footnotes with what seems to be reliable refs.  Plus, a really quick look at the GB results show that this is an important event in the history of Theosophy and beyond, and that it was discussed in numerous reliable sources, more or less extensively. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: to assess the sources provided Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 04:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep It is indeed frustratingly difficult to find coverage that is not authored by the Theosophists themselves, because boy did they ever sweep the field on this one in the following century.  However, I think the two sources presented above should be sufficient for minimal requirements.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 13:08, 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.

Discussion outcome: keep