Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demons in Apotropaic Prayers and Incantations


 * 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   redirect to Apotropaic magic. Deleted before redirecting The Bushranger One ping only 01:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Demons in Apotropaic Prayers and Incantations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I came across this while looking into the PROD categories and seeing another page by the same user that is up for PROD. While I think that this is a page for a student user, this is pretty much a personal WP:OR research paper that has been posted as an article. In the state it's in, this is pretty much WP:NOT. If someone can find a way to prove that this passes notability guidelines then I'm all for it, but offhand this just looks like something a little too specific to really have notability out of the basic article for demons. In case this is a student assignment, I've put a copy in the editor's userspace. I've also given her a little info about NPOV and all that good stuff, as I've noticed that some of her other few edits have been reverted by other users. (Basically telling her that editing in her userspace will make the info less likely to be deleted and that until she gets a hang of how the articles should be written, that doing that and getting a more experienced editor to help mentor will keep her stuff from getting reverted or deleted.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is essay-like and not fully referenced. I'm leaning towards deletion but wonder if any could content be saved and merged to Apotropaic magic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not an easy delete, is it? There is some merit here, but I'm not sure in what context it could be saved. The big issue is trying to figure out what is OR/essay and what is specifically sourced by the references.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article topic could be notable, but in its current state, it's a hotbed of original research that does not quite meet notability. We're not an academic journal, we're not a secondary source.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Apotropaic magic where reliably-sourced content can be used to construct a paragraph or two on the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2012 (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.