Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musings of a Thelemite

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was DELETE. The redlinked editors' contributions are almost entirely to this AfD, so I'm not going to weight their comments heavily. Spacelord is a major contributor to the article, so he's entitled to be heard. That said, there is a clearly dominant delete contingent with concerns over notability and reasons for creation (which may or may not be well-founded). -Splashtalk 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musings of a Thelemite[edit]

Janitorial action. This was a challenged {{prod}} deletion, tagged with the reason "Not of Encyclopedic Value". I've not had a chance to read the article yet so I'm not voting. kingboyk 01:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think that it is a decently fleshed out article, and that book references, even if rare, are valuable in an encylopedia. I think this is certainly the case, considering the limited amount of titles on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacelord (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as spam. The preceding comment is from User:Spacelord, the only non-janitorial editor of the article. Spacelord is also the creator of Frater Da'Neos, Da'Neos and Daneos. The book's publisher is a friend of Spacelord's, and the book isn't even out yet. In other words, this article is part of the publicity campaign for an NYP book. · rodii · 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They tried too hard to assert notability, it didn't work. Royboycrashfan 02:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per notability. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable yet. Grandmasterka 05:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I wouldn't say it was part of a publicity campaign. I honestly do feel that it is a worthwhile entry. I am acquainted with the publisher, but think about it: doesn't anyone who writes on anything have to have some connection to know about it? As far as notable, the vast majority of things on Wikipedia are virtually unknown and obscure. Is this notable: Destroy 2? The reason I have always found Wikipedia to be interesting is that you can find reliable information on a number of things which you can't find in a standard encylopedia. If we are to delete everything that is "un-notable" then I will have a great number of proposals for the deletion pile, including the above referenced page. Spacelord 06:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, article created by someone who works for the publisher, I can't see how something has encyclopedic value when it doesn't exist yet. --Chaoscrowley 06:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say keep it. I went to the Alchemy press page and had myself a look see. The book comes out in February 2006. Seems silly to delete a well fleshed out entry that will be valid in less than a month. It'll most likely pop up again at that time, and what valid complaint will you have then? Keep.
  • Delete I don't think it's silly to delete an entry about a book not notable yet. -- Samir ∙ TC 07:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, and neither the title of the book nor the author have more than three non-wikipeda google hits. --moof 08:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow, you guys are harsh -- isn't the point of WP to be more responsive and inclusive than traditional print encyclopedias? Looks like the book is legitimate, and if there isn't already an article on the term why not allow an entry in case people are looking for additional information? Seems like we should be erring on the side of inclusion if the only objection is notability, especially since the Notability essay is self-proclaimed as neither a policy nor even a guidline. - TRDriver 09:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If anything is to be done, perhaps it should be merged into a larger article dealing with Thelemic authors. The article addresses the interesting question of whether or not Thelemites should write about the Book of the Law, a topic I find interesting. I haven't read the book personally, but aparently it is going to be out soon, and it may be of interest to Thelemites. Regardless, I don't think the info should just be chucked. Perhaps it should be enfolded into a larger article, as I said above. Kha-Sun 11:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user's second edit, the first being to the article in question. --kingboyk 13:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thelema without prejudice to a future article if this book becomes notable. Currently the article is a discussion of content which isn't an appropriate wikipedia article. If it has some notability at a later point, it would seem appropriate to have the article on the Musings then. MLA 12:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Book lacks ISBN number, doesn't seem to be available for purchase anywhere I can find. These would seem to be minimum criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. ISBN 0977691101. Publisher is, indeed, the Alchemy Press. Don't know how I managed not to google that on my first search. No change to vote; not notable enough. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I emailed the publisher, and examined their web page. www.alchemypress.org. It both has an isbn, and can be purchased at this time. Keep it. The article on it is better written than most of the stuff I've seen on here. --Almightyzentaco 17:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has four edits, the first three were to this AfD. Pepsidrinka 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is irrelevant information, and has no bearing on the validity of my opinion or vote. --Almightyzentaco 17:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. That site (nor any other I can see) does not have an ISBN. Dlyons493 Talk 19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factual material. Claims to fame are link to Thelema cult (which has already been proven notable) and scarcity of publication (as addressed in introduction), both of which provide sufficient notability. Improve references. Include external links to related sites.  Cdcon  19:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Even though it may be published and have an ISBN number, it's nn at this time (a Google search of "Musings of a Thelemite" returns only five results) --Colonel Cow 21:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Pepsidrinka 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Musings_of_a_Thelemite&oldid=1142281256"