Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Book of Aquarius


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Book of Aquarius

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable book Shadowjams (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Under what grounds? It is supported by a publisher, which is not a vanity press. The book contains countless quotes, and a full bibliography. Is that not following the guidelines? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This article does not meet any of the criteria for deletion according to Deletion_policy. I would like to add: "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Unfortunately I can't find any reliable sources that indicate that the book meets Notability (books). The existing references are threads in forums, and online forums are usually not considered to be reliable, since they are user generated (and to be honest, the references given don't exactly support the claim that it "sparked activity on many Internet forums").  I have tried to find other sources that do meet WP:RS, but have failed. --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This content has no sources that meet our minimum standards, in that all the sources cited are either related to the publisher, or else consist of user-submitted content. Wikipedia requires fully independent sources that have editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.  I have looked for such sources and I have not been able to find any, so policy requires me to say, delete.— S Marshall  T/C 11:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Understand. I am the creator of this article. Concerning the claim that it "sparked activity on many Internet forums", this I understand - it is better that the statement is removed as it is not verifiable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Regarding the notability of the book, it is actually not for sale by the publisher, only appears to be hosted and announced by the publisher, and so the publisher should be considered a secondary instead of primary source. Forgotten Books does not sell this book, but they do appear to be referring others to it. My reason for starting this article is in regards to the book's content. The value of the book (in my opinion) is not so much in the writing of the author, but in the research conducted by the author on the subject of alchemy. No other book exists which contains such a high degree of research on this subject. It answers many questions with reference to alchemical texts, not just the opinion of the author (which is what alchemy has turned into now everyone can give their opinion on the Internet.) This is why I believe it is notable. I hope others will agree with me on this point. Considering that forgottenbooks.org is secondary source, I would therefore like to suggest it's notability under Criteria: 3 The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. I am still a new contributor to Wikipedia, so please give me a little slack when it comes to getting hang of all the rules here. I have read about 10 pages of them today. Anyway, I intend to fight for saving this article, so I will look to see if I can find any more sources. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case, perhaps this book would be better served as a reference on the subject of alchemy and used to expand that article, and may even in time be identified as itself a reliable source. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you everyone for taking the time to explain the situation to me as a new contributor, and not yet fully understanding how things work around here. I do see perfectly well now that this book is not notable according to the rules of Wikipedia, and those rules also have a good purpose. Actually, I am used to having to provide citation and reference from primary or secondary sources, although in my field newspaper articles do not count as credible. Certainly the articles alchemy and philosopher's stone need a lot of work and better references, they currently lack citations to credible sources. As for The Book of Aquarius, it was just my attempt at a first article, but I see it is not supported by enough credible sources to be included on Wikipedia. In which case I accept if the decision in made to delete. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.


 * Delete. We learn that the Internet is a bad place to look for the secrets of alchemy.  If you look there, you're likely to come away with a recipe for cooking the philosopher's stone out of your own piss.  The universe is laughing behind your back.  At any rate, neither Google News nor Scholar have given this text any notice.  There is a Books citation to Theosophist Magazine from 1961; but if this is a 2011 alchemical discovery that may not be the same thing.  This is a non-notable book, original research, and etcetera. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hi Will. Sorry to be meeting you, and for you to be meeting Wikipedia, in such a situation. Articles for Deletion is a pretty rough neighborhood. It's essentially part of the quality control mechanism at Wikipedia, unknown to most casual users. Hopefully you'll appreciate the need for such things, even if your article is currently in the defendant's chair in this little inclusion-worthiness trial and won't let a potential negative outcome stop you from becoming a prolific content creator at Wikipedia.
 * The problem this subject is facing is one of notability, which is fairly cut-and-dried for books. Merely being published by a reputable publisher, or being the subject of a lite book review here and there, is not enough. To defend this article successfully two or three serious articles are going to need to be mustered ABOUT the book. Finding them is a lot like hunting for needles in a haystack, but that's what it's going to take, since the other easy ways to demonstrate inclusion-worthiness, such as winning a major literary award, being written by a particularly important author, being the source of a movie, or being a best-seller, are all pretty much precluded from the outset.


 * My sense, looking at things at a glance, is that this is going to be a difficult defense. I do hope that if this debate ends in a Delete result that the piece is "userfied" to you by the closing administrator so that you can keep working on it searching for additional sourcing which may emerge in the future. If you've got any questions about the ins-and-outs at Wikipedia, don't hesitate to drop me a line because we can always use more good content-creators around here and I think you're probably one and am happy to help. Again, though: this is going to be a tough row to hoe and I wish you the best in locating sourcing. —Tim Carrite (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC) —feel free to email if you prefer: MutantPop@aol.com Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete despite the comedy value of imagining internet nerds boiling their own pee for years on end, this pretty clearly fails WP:BK. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge a couple lines to alchemy in the appropriate place and redirect. Carrite (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. My first impression is this is all an elaborate hoax, but who knows. It's interesting, but unfortunately without the coverage in independent reliable sources, it fails WP:BK criteria. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's certainly not a "hoax," per se, because, well, there it is, right up there on the webpage. I wouldn't say that WP:BK applies, simply because this isn't a book: it's web content which falls under WP:WEB.  The work, of course, fails all the criteria of WP:WEB.   Ravenswing  11:49, 12 May 2011 (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.