Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexagradior


 * 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 Delete. Fram (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hexagradior

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

Non-notable self published book. References are misleading, and all references are to unreliable self published sources. As far as I can the majority of this article is made up non-sense. Ridernyc (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against deleting it but the fact is that this book exists and I have seen it being debated since mid 90s. None of it is "non-sense". If you google "hexagradior" you get over 1000 results. It is mentioned in at least one book (Ardeth - The Made Vampire) and that was published prior to "Hexagradior Bible Of Magic" where (to my knowledge) the Hexagradior text itself was first made public as one chapter of the book. So much for non-notable. One book and over thousand web pages refered to it (agreed, some of it are usernames, but it still disproves the "non-notable" theory). All before it appeared on Amazon.

"references misleading" ??? - one reference is the Wikipedia article itself LOL It references Egyptian Soul beliefs and "Ka" symbol which does look exactly like one exercise from the book. That is undeniable. Rosemary Clark in "The Sacred Magic of Ancient Egypt" has sacred gestures and magic practices from Ancient Egypt one of which is that exact one resembling the "Ka" symbol. Rosicrucian Monographs also describe same exercise. That exercise exists at least since 19th century. All facts, no "made up non-sense". When the word "hexagradior" started being associated with that exercise + the others is another matter. And that is the problem I don't have answer to.

By now all pages from 90s where name "hexagradior" was discussed are gone or updated with newer dates and I can't find any earlier references to it. As explained it probably stems from early 20th century Europe and references from that time are hard to find because people had bigger problems like two world wars to think and write about. All in all, I'd have to agree not much can be verified and on that grounds I agree that it can be removed.

Then again same "unverifiable" goes for most of stuff from the Wikipedia grimoires list. Noone knows when exactly which grimoire was made. The only difference is that they are older which gave more time to more books to reference them. I guess let's leave it to someone in 50 years time or so to make this entry again. MrMagneto (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First a google search returns 1300 many of which have nothing to do with the book at all. Second Every google hit about the book is to a self published book. As far as I can tell this just all made up to promote the book.  If you can find reliable sources that refer to this in anyway it would be helpful. Right now it just looks like viral marketing to me. Ridernyc (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the Ardeth The Made Vampire is another self published book the text dealing with Hexagradior can be read here.  Not a very convincing source. Basically at best we have a totally non-notable urban legned that someone named a non-notable book after. Either way I can see none of this passing WP:V. Ridernyc (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also a search of news groups returns 0 hits. So in the past 27 years no one mentioned this book even once, kind of strange. Ridernyc (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Hmmm. There's a self-published book by this title with Amazon sales rank of #1,111,589. The references seem to consist of a website and a post in a forum. I think that the book is non-notable and that the article does not have any reliable sources. Cardamon (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said. Can't be verified and I agree with deletion on that grounds. I am saying that your other arguments don't stand. Newsgroup search ??? Are you even into occult? I just searched for "Le Grand Albert" and "La clef de la magie noire". Albert returns a bunch of people named Albert all "...of which have nothing to do with the book at all..." and one saint of that name. Second book gives 0 results. "... So in the past 27 years no one mentioned ... " two books one on which has centuries of reputation in France and Channel Islands and is mentioned in a number of books, and the other book is where pentagram with goat first appeared (19th century) and still has no mentions of it in "past 27 years" in news groups. "Key of solomon" (present since 1500s) gets 1 result and even that is for "Songs in the Key of Solomon" and that has nothing to do with the grimoire. "...So in the past 27 years no one mentioned..." The Key of Solomon. One of most famous, if not the most famous of all grimoires? Not "...even once, kind of strange...." Amazon sales rank? I look at http://www.amazon.com/Aradia-Gospel-Witches-Charles-Leland/dp/1585092428/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202978771&sr=8-5 (Aradia) and I see sales rank #1,541,394 (lower than what Cardamon found) Is that grounds for removing Aradia now? Of all arguments, only the one about verifiability stands. No firm references can be found. We agree on deletion on the grounds of "no firm references", just not on other arguments around it, so let's just delete the damn book because we can go on like this for days. MrMagneto (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep talking about famous this is yet there is no record of it anywhere, nothing not one mention other than the self published book. Ridernyc (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right that Amazon sales rank is not a good way of determining the notability of a book. A better method is to check whether  the book has been the subject of multiple non-trivial mentions (for example, book reviews) in published sources independent of the book itself.  As  far as I can tell, this book hasn't. Cardamon (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I said Key of Solomon is famous. Not Hexagradior. We all agree that the references are not firm enough to make it "famous". What I am saying is that the problem with Hexagradior is lack of references which makes anything anyone writes about it unverifiable. I am simply not agreeing that it is "non-sense" and that "non-notable" is measured by Amazon rank, that's all. MrMagneto (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Cardamon. Self-published books are virtually always non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:27, 15 February 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.