Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of angels in Enochian

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August &#9742; 22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

List of angels in Enochian, moved to Enochian angels
I believe this qualifies as a Completely Idiosyncratic Non-Topic, as referenced in the deletion policy, which stipulates such entries be deleted. Also, I believed that its presence is in violation of the combined spirit of two sections of WP:NOT, "Not a dictionary" and "Not a phone book". Both apply loosely, but the general idea that lists of individually unimportant topics or topics incapable of being the basis for an article do not become keepworthy articles by dint of collecting lots of unacceptable tidbits together. The Literate Engineer 04:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Enochian isn't obscure at all. This is an excerpt from an Enochian dictionary, and original source material belongs elsewhere. Pilatus 14:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know enough about Enochian, is this an excerpt from a dictionary, or is it a list of angel names in the Enochian language, or is it a list of angels that Dee invented/surmised/(appropriate verb here)? Crypticfirefly 03:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, gobbledygook. Nandesuka 04:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete  It isn't exactly a "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" but it doesn't add up to an article either. If it were an article about these Enochian angels as well as including this (distressingly lengthy) list, I'd be more in favor of it. Crypticfirefly 04:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC) I should explain, if this were presented in a way that would make it more clear that it is a mythology-type entry, it's usefulness would be more obvious. Crypticfirefly 03:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Enochian Angels. 04:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is crufty, but it is 16th century cruft that somebody has found interesting enough to compile more than 400 years later, which - as I see it - makes it more notable than all the Buffycruft and Pokemoncruft we have and which is not unlikely to be forgotten much sooner than that. Uppland 06:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I admit that my nomination suggests the cruftiness is the big problem. And that does contribute to my desire to delete this.  But what justifies deletion to me more is that the entry doesn't say anything substantial about that cruft.  And if by dint of being 400 years old but still getting slipped in here it's notable, doesn't it still need to be deleted because as a list it belongs at Wikisource and not on Wikipedia?  The Literate Engineer 06:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Concur with Uppland -- where else would you look to find this information? Or, quantitatively, how many of the angels would you want expanded upon, and how long an "article about these Enochian angels" would you want, to "justify" inclusion ?  --Simon Cursitor 07:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like a short explanation of what significance they supposedly held to Dee & Kelley. Were these angels they spoke to?  Angels other angels told them about?  Did they publish a list like this or was it compiled by others from their work? Also, based on the Enochian article, it looks like this isn't exactly a "list of angels in Enochian" in the sense of the constructed language.  That's probably why some folks think this is a dictionary entry.  It might be better titled "Enochian Angels."  Crypticfirefly 03:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource. There is a place for lists like this, and that is it. MCB 07:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A list of names is not notable even if they are in a 16th century conlang. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per User:MCB Pilatus 10:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Keep after rewrite. Nice work! The list of names should go to Wikisource, though. Pilatus 16:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * keep, lists of minor fictional characters. Kappa 10:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Enochian is a pretty obscure subject anyway, this is going a bit far, not notable. PatGallacher 11:34, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
 * Reserved . I remember reading "Enochian Physics" sometime back, it is an intersting attempt to attribute archetypal (sp?) values to "Magick", not unlike Aleister Crowley's works on the "harmonisation" of the old Tarot. This list, however, needs checking. I will take the book of the shelf when I get home and have a look: if it's not too far out, I will do some work on it Alf melmac 13:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Aha - my book is "Enochian Physics - The Structure of the Magical Universe" by Gerald J Schueler. He does mention the four hierachs of each Watchtower (Kings) which match the ones given in the list (minor spelling differences apart), but unfortunately doesn't list the angels. If it helps though, we could add: "Each Watchtower is divided into six subhierachies. The hierarch of each of these is called a Senior. Each of the four Watchtowers is also divided into four subquadrants whose hierarchies are called Archangels. These are further divided up into smaller hierarchies whose rulers are called Angels. In this way, the entire universe, visible and invisible, is teeming with beings in varying states of self-consciousness". We could also add the eleven rules of hierachies if that might improve it beyond being a mere list. Alf melmac 19:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I say add it and let's take a look, Alf. The Literate Engineer 00:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Tis done (and after the rewrite, I assure you my head hurts more than yours does now), The article is now a brief explanation and the list. I say Keep and rename to Enochian Angels - so mote it be! Alf melmac 15:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice job, but I'd like it better if we removed the list. Still, if it can be renamed, I'm leaning toward Keep now. DenisMoskowitz 18:11, 2005 September 9 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a list of unencyclopedic items. DenisMoskowitz 16:06, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
 * Keep It is an actual article now, and should be moved to Enochian Angels. DenisMoskowitz 18:11, 2005 September 9 (UTC)


 * Keep. Dee & Kelley's forays into the occult are certainly noteworthy; this is an offshoot that merits inclusion. Can anyone actually verify this?  I didn't realise that Dee & Kelley had that much time on their hands. Dottore So 17:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, or transwiki... I think this will still be remembered when Ray Nagin is rotting and forgotten... gren グレン 21:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource. Tonywalton | Talk 10:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The page has been moved to Enochian angels. Hope there are no broken links. Pilatus 16:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep at Enochian angels; article is more than just a list. -Sean Curtin 19:28, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Uppland. Nabla 19:47:16, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
 * Comment this list presently reads as absolute nonsense, so if kept it must be provided with context. I'd say you should find a suitable article and merge this in, or if it is really an extended quotation then transwiki it as suggested above.
 * It looks clear to me that the cabal will have none of this, and that voting is useless. First it's crufty; till someone points out that its probably more valuable than Pokemon(TM).  Then the title of the article gets criticised; so someone changes it.  But then it's the context -- so someone thoughtfully spends hours putting it in context, and still they aren't satisfied.  Why don't the cabal just own up to the fact that, once one of them has voted against an article, it will be deleted unless the rest of the cabal protest and protect it. --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're talking about - it's 9 to 3 in favor of keeping it at the moment. DenisMoskowitz 14:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly. But when the count's taken, you'll find votes discounted for relating to "older versions of the page", which therefore can't be applied to the new version, or (where people repeat a vote, so that it relates to the new version, both get discounted because it's double-voting, and then, of course, there are the votes discounted because "everybody" knows that they're sockpuppets (which is my cue to sneak away silently). --SockpuppetSamuelson 07:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Who was that masked puppet?. Alf melmac 07:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The entry enochian by itself doesn't give me much sense of the system. Dan 19:01, 14 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.