Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambriel


 * 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 no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ambriel


This was a challenged speedy delete. It is completely non-notable and lacks context. Also, the sources could be questionable, but it also might me true. Anyway, this article should be deleted. Diez2 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is mentioned on a graphic design site along with about 400 other fictional angels.  Any lists of 400 made up (and non notable) names do not need to be on wikipedia at all even on one page - this certainly does not need it's own page.  be on the look out editors.Obina 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is an irrelevant reference - there are plenty of references that are based on a belief in the existence of this angel; the question is whether Wikipedia is the right forum to judge whether these exist (and as I say below I am not qualified to decide but am willing to bow to the views of editors who are qualified to pronounce on the existence of specific angels). TerriersFan 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - whether angels are 'made up' is a concept that I am not qualified to comment on, not having ever met one. However, unless Category:Angels is to be deleted this one is perfectly verifiable, see Google hits . Ambriel has plenty of references. If we are to eliminate anything not provable. e.g. God etc that's fine but if not then this one has 'multiple non-trivial mentions'. I have added some qualifying words; if these are not enough then add content to achieve NPOV rather than delete. TerriersFan 21:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is a traditional theophoric name with well-documented astrological associations. It appears in books such as the Seventh Book of Moses. If there were well-defined notability guidelines for this kind of thing, it would meet them. -- Shunpiker 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You have given more information than this stub (or that I teased out of google). Helpful. But since the article says little, I'd still suggest a delete or redirect until someone can provide a NPOV article with references. Perhaps a page on "angels from Seventh Book of Moses" would be better. Obina 01:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteThe websites cited are not reliable sources and actually omit some well known angels. Find better references. Edison 00:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - whether an angel is well known is POV. Please specify which ones your refer to. Indeed, please exemplify what constitutes a reliable reference on an angel since no-one knows if they exist. TerriersFan 01:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To expand on why it's an issue, is this the angel that governs travel and transportation, or maybe the one that is concerned with communication and protection, or that cares about youth and encourages exploration?  A lack of credible third party sources means that this article cannot be verified to be free from bias. - 152.91.9.144 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you for the source - Ambriel is mentioned in communication and protection and I have added it to the article. I have stubbed the article since I agree it needs expansion.
 * Sorry, you're wildly mis-interpreting what these policies mean... the policy on verification says quite clearly "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." What we're looking for is a reliable source that says "Here is the main view of what this thing is." That's the "undue weight" part of the bias guideline (a.k.a neutral point of view.) If there are not substantial, serious, independant sources for this we can't be sure that we're not giving too much credibility to what one fringe source says. The fortune city version is just something someone whacked on the internet, it doesn't have any provenance. - 152.91.9.144 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that this is in part a reply to this edit, later recanted. - 152.91.9.144 01:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Help needed - OK, I am not sure what is now required. If an NPOV viewpoint on angels is needed then go to Angel. If you want a source linking Ambriel with May and Gemini there are as many as you want and I have linked to some. Is the New York Daily News reliable? If so go here. TerriersFan 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- per TerriersFan. --Oakshade 06:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak delete. At least one of the sources cited doesn't mention this angel by name at all.  38.100.34.2 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.