Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeon (Thelema)

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeon (Thelema)

non-notable concept of a fringe religion 999 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my nom. 999 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There should be a section for "religioncruft". Danny Lilithborne 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: topic is both notable and Thelema is a recognized religion with tens of thousands of adherents. Moreover, the "fringeness" of a religion is not a reason for deletion. Ashami 06:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aleister Crowley's works were taking up a good amount of shelf space last time I visited a New Age/metaphysical bookstore. Granted, he only claimed to be the devil, but I'm still missing how part of the work of one of the great occultists of the last century, which has considerably influenced many new religious movements such as Wicca, can be seen as "non-notable". Kiti 07:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a useful article. 'Per my norm' is inadequate reason to delete anything. Daimonos 10am GMT April 17 This new user's only edits are to Thelema-related AfDs. -999 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he meant "per my nomination", as in what he stated immediately above. That aside, I voted keep. Jordanmills 22:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a valuable well written article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowatdawn (talk • contribs) This new user's first and only edit. -999 15:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Jesustrashcan 10:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This topic is a big deal in Thelema and it needs an article. Is someone trying to pick on Thelema? Bad form! Somecallmetim 13:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fringe, maybe, but a notable fringe religion, and a notable concept within that religion. Fan1967 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge to Thelema. The religion is significant enough to be encyclopedic, while the concepts within it may not be notable enough to merit separate articles and should be included in the main article, if at all. Ekajati 14:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Thelema, for the same reasons as City of the Pyramids and other Crowleycruft. Notable only as part of this field of "knowledge substitute". Barno 15:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Thelema per Barno.  RasputinAXP  c 20:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all these little stubs with Thelema. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fringe but useful Jordanmills 22:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no good reason for deletion given. For great justice. 00:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge per above. Fishhead64 02:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important concept of a notable religion/philosophy. Too big to merge. --Joelmills 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Thelema oreb 19:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Thelma article is large enough on it's own and since Wikipedia isn't paper, there is nothing wrong with having more information on it. Since Thelma is the basis of most modern occultism, it's pretty far from nn. That Thelema is a "Fringe religion" doesn't mean anything. Greek polytheism could also currently be considered a "fringe religion" but Greek mythology is still important from a historical perspective. Shadowoftime 22:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to correct misrepresentation, Thelema is hardly the basis for "most moderrn occultism" - modern occultism is an extremely large topic, and there are many large, well-established occult organizations which are non-Thelemic, even anti-Thelemic. The second supporting argument is ill-conceived as well, but I will leave the reason for that as an exercise for the reader. :-) -999 15:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If major, well-established occult organizations consider themselves anti-Thelemic, that shows the influence of Thelema just as much as if they considered themselves pro-Thelemic. (why bother considering yourself anti-Thelemic if Thelema is just a non-notable fringe religion?) The question here is the verifiability and notablility of Thelema, not whether or not people like it. Shadowoftime 22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - you like to mischaracterize people's positions, don't you? I never said that Thelema was non-notable. I believe that it is notable. It is the specific concepts that are not notable enough to have separate articles. They can all be described in the main article. -999 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, avoid merging, and expand The Thelema parent article is already pushing the boundaries of useful size, and this is another topic not adequately covered by the existing text. For similar odd once-stubbish articles about minor beliefs in fringe religions, see Kolob, or Xenu (the latter article eventually became a front page FA). Ronabop 05:35, 20 April 2006

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.