Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abyss (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 to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 07:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abyss (Thelema)

non-notable concept of fringe religion 999 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my nom. 999 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There should be a section for "religioncruft". Danny Lilithborne 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Argument for keeping The Abyss (and it's spirital crossing) is a major concept in a global religion, and while certainly not mainstream, it has tens of thousands of adherents (if not more). The concept of the Abyss is a core theme of arguably the most notable occultist of the 20th century, Aleister Crowley. Moreover, the concept appears in many books, by Crowley as well as more recent authors. The Abyss represents a culmination of spiritual attainment, and the current stub is but a placeholder for a potentially rich and useful article that can bring further insight to a complex and growing religion. Give it a chance to grow before judging its merit. Ashami 06:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "religioncruft" and merge to Thelema. And are we allowed to remove the header of the previous comment? It's disrupting this AfD entry. Some guy 07:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm thinking it is ok to clean up attention-grabbing devices that disrupt the AfD page. Will act accordingly. Weregerbil 12:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• 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. Weregerbil 12:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment per my nom means: per my nomination. --Eivind^t@c 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Thelema. --Eivind^t@c 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Since when is "fringe" an excuse to delete? What kind of discrimination is this? Somecallmetim 13:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Fringe, maybe, but a notable fringe religion, and a notable concept within that religion. Fan1967 13:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• 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 14:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The concept is significant not only in Thelema but also in some versions of the Kabbalah, where it divides the highest and most abstract manifestations of the Godhead from the lower and more concrete ones. A finished article should also mention Crowley's claim to have crossed the Abyss: in essence, Crowley announced his self-deification. Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Thelema, and be sure to have a link to the related, but seperate, concept of the Abyss in Kaballah. Alba 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ashami. As this article was only created yesterday, I think it deserves some time to expand beyond its current state. Merge if it does not. --Joelmills 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge per above. Fishhead64 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• 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 22:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 15:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • 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 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • 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)
• Keep, avoid merging, and expand The Thelema parent article is already pushing the boundaries of useful size, and the actual topic (of the Abyss) is barely scratched upon by the current article 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 (UTC)
• Keep or merge: I have created the Thelemic mysticism article, which includes the info in this article. Although I would like to see this article remain and become expanded, it would not be unreasonable to have it redirect to the new article. Ashami 23:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. The Thelemic mysticism article is a good place for it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:53, 22 April 2006 (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.