Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Aeon English Qabala


 * 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   no consensus. and not likely to be one with a third relisting. TravellingCari 14:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

New Aeon English Qabala

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

not notable independent of Hermetic Qabalah. Semi-procedural nom for an IP. There is a related AfD English Qabalah and I listed this one separately just because someone asked me nicely, though I don't personally consider this much different/ notable enough to have a separate article. Sticky Parkin 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No WP:RS- all the books that even mention this are self-published using lulu.com .  I know a bit about the subject and three or more of the references given in the article, which are making some people think there might be sources for this NAEQ, are not about NAEQ but about English Qaballa in general- if anything it adds a tiny bit of notability to the other article.  Crowley, The Equinox etc were talking about English Qabbalah, not this newer thing derived from it.  They didn't always call what they did New Aeon English Qabala, I think they mainly would have just called it English Qaballa, though tangentially of course all three 'groups'- Aliester Crowley, and these two groups derived from his work, believe in the New Aeon. Sticky Parkin 21:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, lack of sourcing and suspiciously like a walled garden. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this system was originally developed by Jim Lees, but written about by Carol Smith and Jake Stratton-Kent. It was originally published in the seminal (in its field) The New Equinox: British Journal of Magick (later The Equinox: British Journal of Thelema, ISSN 0953-7015), which was a peer-reviewed journal with a triumvirate of editors. The original articles written by Carol Smith (who was not one of the journal's editors) were in Volumes 5 and 6 of the journal. The system was considered so important that it was recapped in Volume 7 by Jake Stratton-Kent (a significant figure in the UK occult scene and, yes, one of the editors of the journal, but not the author of the system he was writing about). It is my opinion that the following sources used for the article meet WP:RS, and the fact that the system is still written about 20 years later by Greenfield, del Campo, and Crow demonstrates its continuing notability, even if they are Lulu.com publications:
 * Smith, Carol. "The Key to the English Qaballa" in The New Equinox / British Journal of Magick (ISSN 0953-7015), Vol. 5.
 * Stratton-Kent, Jake (March 1988). "The English Qaballa" in The Equinox: British Journal of Thelema (ISSN 0953-7015), Vol. VII, No. 1, pp. 17-25.
 * Stratton-Kent, Jake (May 1988). "What is a Qabalah?" in The Equinox: British Journal of Thelema (ISSN 0953-7015), Vol. VII, No. 2, pp. 59-61.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

comment to be fair, you can't call this equinox a peer-reviewed journal as it was written by the people themselves- it would be like me and a mate and someone we share an interest with all writing a few essays, putting them together and calling it a peer reviewed journal. I would like to direct people again to the article English Qabalah to take another look- it has been much improved and includes this theory and all the other theories on the subject, so is much more WP:NPOV and encyclopedic, whereas this is just an article about one groups' theories on the subject. As such, this one is superfluous, and it does not have sufficient independent notability from the English Qabalah to warrant another article. Sticky Parkin 08:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, not entirely fair, as they did not write all the articles. For example, the first run of the EQ material was written by Carol Smith, an independent contributor not on the staff, and I understand that prior to 1979, when the title was The New Equinox, the journal was edited by Ray Sherwin. So your criticism does not apply to the initial presentation. With respect to Vol. VII, JSK was summarizing previously published material, not presenting his own, and presumably the other two editors had to approve its inclusion. On the basis of your argument, we would have to delete the article on Aleister Crowley's The Equinox, as he was both the editor and wrote most of the material! In fact, the argument would be even better in that case. Bob (QaBob) 14:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even if they wrote none of the articles themselves, this would still not be a peer reviewed journal. The "peer" in peer review has a particular meaning, and requires more than editorial acceptance.Yobmod (talk) 10:13, 8 October 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) 10:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable per Nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage</b> 06:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe in deleting material that provides information to people like myself The arguments to delete above are specious. What does it matter that all the books listed are self-published or from one publisher Everyone has agendas, including the individuals whom is wishing to delete this material. I came to this material through Google and it has had value for me. That alone is enough to keep the article. I have not read these books mentioned, but likely there is material the seekers to delete this page do not want some of us to have access too. The material in the books may or may not be valid, that is the situation will ALL books. All books are written with an agenda Self publishing is no criteria for not allowing access, or information about access to such books, to others. Material should be deleted only if it is repetitious, on many other pages, or just does not make any sense in the English language or language it is written in. Any deletion beyond that is pure censorship, nothing more, one individual deciding that other individuals should not have access and information to read the material, for some reason the delete advocate 'believes' is valid. This material should be kept if for no other reason than that it is not found on many other html pages, perhaps any other html pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.71.159 (talk • contribs) -- Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep borderline notable, adequately documented, and distinct from the related topics. Needs considerable cutting. some of the absurd keep arguments above are not by themselves reasons to delete. DGG (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this poorly put together piece is a violation of WP:NEO; WP:NN; WP:COI (The former WP:VANITY.) This type of thing needs more time to be taken seriously and not every cult or study group that springs up is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I completely agree with IZAK's reasoning above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to try to claim notability as the English Qabala. This is not backed by the sources though, which don't show notability enough for this group to have it's own article. Maybe a subsection in a more general (and less COI-ish) article, but this one should be deleted. Creating a redirect to the not-deleted English Qabala might be good.Yobmod (talk) 10:11, 8 October 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.