Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Septenary (Theosophy)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Septenary (Theosophy)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article has been unsourced since 2008 and reads as a personal essay. The topic is basically Theosophy gobbledygook. I get that fringe topics that are well sourced deserve to be on Wikipedia but this topic has no academic/historical coverage, nor any coverage outside of Theosophy. The only sources for Blavatsky's "Septenary" are Blavatsky herself and some of her followers. It's not possible to write an article on this topic with reliable independent sources. The way the article is written reads entirely as original research and I believe it should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom., this reads like an essay with the only real source being "Keys to Theosophy". That is probably enough for deletion on its own, as the subject is clearly not notable. The whole thing is sourced to just 3 pages of one book of teachings in a WP:FRINGE area. However it is much worse than that. I looked up the reference, which is poorly made. I could not find the passage in the 1905 "Keys to Theosophy", it is in the 1889 edition (both available on Open Library). So then I started researching what the 1905 edition says to see if I could find the equivalent passage and discovered that even in Theosophy "The Septenary" is not a subject at all. Septenary just has its natural meaning of "sevenfold" and the subject being treated on this page is on the "nature of man" or the "constitution of man" which in Theosophy is apparently sevenfold. In the 1889 edition, the short section is headed "The Septenary Nature of Man". The very concept of this page is a huge misconception. "Septenary" is not a thing in Theosophy, and this is amateur philosophizing WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. Blavatsky at some point said that the nature of man is sevenfold; that doesn't mean "The Septenary" is a thing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Nom and Sirfurboy. Lands squarely in WP:NOTESSAY. --  Otr500 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: agree with nom. Does not meet notability. Zeddedm (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Nom makes a great point, this fails WP:GNG lacks SIGCOV. KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2022 (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.