Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Qabalah


 * 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. Keep consensus emerged after some work has been done on the article, and also the nom made a comment about withdrawing their original nom. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

English Qabalah

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominating on behalf of 209.30.129.152, with the reason "Self-published book, no reviews, no third-party sources". No opinion from me for now. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable, and probably original research. This entire sub-genre may be a novel invention. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

comment Blimey! There are several similar articles that also need help (i.e. probable deletion), see New Aeon English Qabala. Sticky Parkin

redirect /merge anything if any is good out of both these articles, to Hermetic Qabalah. I can vouch that these are not a novel invention, however they're not independently notable from Hermetic Qabalah as a whole, but just need a brief mention there. We don't need to go into as much detail of all the individual invented theories. Sticky Parkin 20:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Participants might also be interested in taking a look at the AfD for the related subject's article New Aeon English Qabalah. I'm listing it individually only because someone asked me nicely.:) Sticky Parkin 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination - the article has been changed significantly since I requested that User:Stifle nominate it on my behalf. As long as it remains a general article on the many systems of English qabalah, I have no objections to the article. It still needs further improvement, but even though I have created an account I am still unable to edit it. Once it has been unprotected or once my account has existed long enough to edit protected article, I will help work to correct deficiencies which I have noted on the article talk page. 209.30.129.152 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. If all the self-published books and websites were removed from the reference list, we'd have an unsourced article. Notability can only be derived from general recognition of the topic in real publications. The article on New Aeon English Qabala has the same problems. I'd be OK with userfying the article so that 209.30.129.152 can work on improving it, but I am really unclear on where he is expecting to find sources. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, already William G. Gray, Michael Bertiaux, and Nevill Drury are not self-published. I had been adding more references to Thelemic gematria (see this version) but not all of them got moved to this article when it was redirected here. In addition, the references from The Equinox: British Journal of Thelema (ISSN 0953-7015) are neither self-published nor self-promoting, as I've explained at Articles for deletion/New Aeon English Qabala. QaBobAllah (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —QaBobAllah (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable nonsense. The self publication in this case is what's normal for the subject--but in this case, i accept the above argument that not al lof them are actually self published. DGG (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as article on general subject (not on self-published book or contents) per argument of DGG. Bob (QaBob) 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * keep I prefer this article now, it covers the various systems, rather than just claiming one is important. It had a problem with a spammer who is now being checkusered, but QaBob and I will keep an eye on the article.:)  There are several books which have been published, some of which are by Weiser, as mentioned above, on the subject, and authors who are well known have written about it in books from reputable presses, or well known books in the subculture. Sticky <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 08:42, 28 September 2008 (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.