Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rose of Paracelsus: On Secrets & Sacraments


 * 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. No compelling arguments for this article's retention have been made. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The Rose of Paracelsus: On Secrets & Sacraments

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book. No coverage in reliable sources. Prod tag and redirect have been reverted without edit summary or discussion on talk page, so here we are at AfD. Propose redirecting to author, William Leonard Pickard. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, is Packard actually notable - "one of two people convicted in the largest lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) manufacturing case in history."? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge this horrid stub with author William Leonard Pickard. Quis separabit?  19:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge To the author page, per the above, as I see zero independent RS coverage for it. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Notablity is conferred by recent review in Psychedelic Press UK Volume XVI (May, 2016) by Henrik Dahl of William Leonard Pickard's "The Rose of Paracelsus: On Secrets and Sacraments" See https://psychedelicpress.co.uk/products/psychedelic-press-volume-xvi (p. 61-67) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarynGraves (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - non-notable fringe. A mention in Pickard's biography would do. Barnrazor's comments (below) are unpersuasive, since the have included much material added to the book that seems undue and add no convincingly reliable sources. Blythwood (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I have found nothing better at all and there's no need to merge if there are chances there's nothing else apart from the obvious information mentioned at his own article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) This article should not be merged with Pickard's biography, because the subject is independent and likely to be extensively expanded, so that splitting will be required from the bio. Merging would create a lengthy and unrelated content in the bio, and would necessitate a split. Edits to this article are being done frequently. Nothing in the bio relates to this article, and this article does not duplicate content in the bio.

Locations and scenes in sequence added to article

Description of characters posted, as well as locations of scenes in sequence.Barnrazor (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, "Merging would create a lengthy and unrelated content in the bio, and would necessitate a split.", a straight merge of the two articles would result in around 2500 words of readable prose, no need to split, see WP:LENGTH - "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the length of the merged article is not the issue, but the relative complexity of content of the book narrative, which does not correlate to Pickard's bio. Merging both articles, while within the "average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes," would result in two distinctly disparate and unrelated issues in the same single article. Merging would reduce coherency of the now separate articles. Formatting is being adjusted and other articles linked. Strong keep.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnrazor (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 June 2016 (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.