Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex magic

 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. Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Sex magic
If anything, neologism, POV, probably pseudoscientific, a hoax...non-enyclopedic, shall we say? Delete. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm almost completely uninterested in paganism, but even I've heard of this. 72 000 google hits once you exclude the Red Hot Chili Peppers. See, for example. Strange belief systsms are encyclopedic. Pburka 9 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete. If there's anything verifiable in here, roll it into the existing magick article. Not enough info to merit an article of its own. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)
 * Merge with magick. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 18:00 (UTC)
 * Keep definitely not a neologism, but usually spelt "sex magick". Connected to Aleister Crowley.     00:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Some notability. JamesBurns 07:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. It is a valid subject, but this is definitely POV. It is written from the perspective that magic is real, and it gives nothing like a scholary overview of the subject. --Fergus 02:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Not neologism. At least the initial paragraphs should be from the perspective of believers / knowledgeable people on the subject. If the validity of "magic" itself is questioned/disputed, such views would belong in a controversy section. Intersofia 01:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. I'm a practitioner of sex magic. This article is of poor quality and cites no sources. A recommended source would be Thelemapedia's entry on the subject. Aleister Crowley wrote some useful information on this subject too. Morningstar2651 06:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. It's entirely valid, and i'm sure there's a history for the term going back a decade or two; which is enough to put it in the OED, at least. The article is very POV, and desperately needs to be completely revised and brought up to a reasonable standard of quality. Lucky Number 49 23:08, July 22 2005
 * 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.