Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Star in Sight

One Star in Sight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiple citations failed verification. About all that seems to be passing verification are primary texts and biographies written by Thelema adherents. Article is something of a coatrack, more concerned with A∴A∴ and Great Work (Thelema) than with the actual topic of discussion. This article should be deleted with the notable material being merged, after verification of citations actually saying what they're citing, to those two articles. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)>[reply]
• Delete this meaningless word salad only sourced to in-bubble "sources" - what I would call "woo." (I note that there is nothing worth merging into those other two articles either.) - Roxy the dog 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Based on the sources, both ones included and not included here, it is notable for both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The primary Crowley sources are an issue as is the infamous Eye in the Triangle & Grant, but the other sources are reliable and not from believers, and there are more than that. Crowley has simply had a lot written about him, and an individual text is a discrete enough topic that it can have a defined scope. The coattrack issue is true but not the point of WP:TNT because it canjust be trimmed. I would say keep and just trim the stuff that is less about the text/puffery. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You did notice the part where, before starting this AfD I found multiple citations that failed verification, yeah? A citation being in the article is not an indication the citation even mentions the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more feedback needed, relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]