Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidolon (apparition)


 * 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   Yash  t  101   02:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Eidolon (apparition)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Verifiable but obscure term from ancient Greek literature. Does not seem to have enough content from multiple, reliable sources to support a separate article. Possible merge to Helen of Troy, Iphigenia, etc. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that the content about the Greeks could be merged to another article, but I think the article should be deleted becuase the name is wrong of the title. The article was originally created by Theosophists as a paranormal article but never contained any sources, only later was the ancient Greek terminology added in, which according to another user and what the ancient meaning says has nothing to do with apparitions or the paranormal. GreenUniverse (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP -- I'm not opposed to merging the content of this article elsewhere in a useful and appropriate way, but User:GreenUniverse's solution of crudely blanking it and replacing it with a redirect to "ghost" is heavy-handed and comes perilously close to being just plain dumb. The ancient Greek word eidolon can sometimes mean "ghost", but in its most memorable and significant uses (such as in the play Helen by Euripides etc.) it did not in fact mean ghost.  The fact that this article has two interwiki links to other-language Wikipedias is another indication that this word is really not simplistically equivalent to "ghost" in the way that User:GreenUniverse seems to believe.  Furthermore, I find it completely incomprehensible how User:GreenUniverse can repetitiously claim that this is a 100% occultistic article when that's very obviously not the case... AnonMoos (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos you have not checked the full history of the article. The original title of the article was Eidolon (astral double), this is an occult term which is only used in about two books by Theosophists in the early 20th century, not notable. The consensus was to merge that article into the article ghost. I don't know quite whats quite happened here, but suddenly we have a new article titled Eidolon (apparition) I say new.. but not really, this article has been on wikipedia for about two years with no references whatsoever, again it looks like another attempt at an occult article with no references. You say Eidolon in its ancient Greek usage is not equivalent to ghost, - but what you seem to be forgetting is, is that this article is named "Eidolon (apparition)" - This article is about the apparition occult term, not the ancient Greek usage. So if anything the article needs to be renamed. GreenUniverse (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- the article may have started out with a occultistic bent, but origination is not destiny. Most of the rest of what you say doesn't seem to make too much sense, and consists of you tiresomely tediously redundantly monotonously repetitively claiming that the article is somehow supposedly 100% occultistic -- in defiance of the clear and plain fact that it isn't. AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the title - Eidolon (apparition) yet you want to make the page into the ancient Greek usage with has nothing to do with apparitions "(such as in the play Helen by Euripides etc)". Nothing else needs to be said. In other words you want to keep an article with apparitions in the title, but then have on that article nothing about apparitions. Makes no sense at all. That is why the article needs to be deleted. GreenUniverse (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- your tedious tiresome multiply-reiterated insistence (flying in the face of all evidence directly in front of you) that this article is somehow a 100% occultistic article is getting very old very fast, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make too much sense, and repeating your assertion won't make it come true... AnonMoos (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think this is a misplaced dictionary entry. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The convoluted history of this deletion discussion is the result of a history merge; two different deletion discussions were created at about the same time, and they had to be spliced together. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - dictionary definition gone astray; no solid evidence that this term is anything more than an inkhorn term of the sort loved by H. P. Lovecraft and his heirs; with an obscure theosophical use thrown in to pad it. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough already to make a separate article feasible and certainly more than a dicdef. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Admittedly I only know the term as a concept used in Greek literature but I tidied the place up with lots of references and what I hope are helpful tidbits. My head hurts after doing it though - been years since I took classics! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It started as a dictionary entry, but Panyd has demonstrated that it's much more than that.  There's room for improvement, but there's been enough improvement since it was nominated that the delete votes aren't really relevant anymore.  Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. In light of Panyd's work, definitely more than a dictionary definition. WilliamH (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Panyd. Also, next time, ten minutes with any decent academic database and do the WP:BEFORE thing. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I just visited the page through the link from H.P. Lovecraft's The Outsider (short story), and was curious about finally learning the meaning of this word, that can also be found in Edgar Poe's poetry (in "Dream-Land", 1844). It may well be an "inkhorn term" as Orangemike puts it, but even if that's the case, I find it useful as a reader to be able to look it up. 1904.CC (talk) 23:17, 1 May 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.