Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Seven Worlds (2nd nomination)

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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Seven Worlds

This reeks of OR and lack of notability. I'm no Kabbala expert, but without sources… Avi 00:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed, this certainly isn't in proper Wiki format, and Google doesn't really turn up much evidence that this exists at all, and the total lack of sources sure doesn't help. As an aside, this article's previous AfD attempt seems rather odd, keep was the unanimous consensus, but the only reason I can find was "I can sort of see where it's coming from." -Elmer Clark 01:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The issues of possible original research and unsourced statements are serious. The article says this appears in several books of Cabbala, but fails to mention even one source. Nonetheless, the material appears to be notable in the context of Cabbala and should be kept. Note the two links in the article to Adamah and Arqa. 129.98.197.86 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw where Adamah was also proposed for articles for deletion, and it is not a very good article itself. OfficeGirl 06:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It utterly lacks context and is unsourced irreparably. JFW | T@lk 11:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the Kabbala article until it warrants it's own article through sourcing. Does that work as a reasonable compromise? --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the Kabbala article as noted by Brad unless someone can clean-up the article and expand it. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE. Since December 4, 2005 there has been no new information added to the article, only some formatting and re-arranging of text, but not enough to bring it into proper wiki format. In June 2006 it was proposed for deletion and the proponents of keeping it all gave the reason that they believed that more information and further development of the article would make into a worthwhile article. It appears that after four months no one is available to bring us the requested further information, and without that further information there is no justification for keeping the article. Perhaps someone can offer a good article on the topic at a later date, but this doesn't belong in Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 06:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. TheRingess 06:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Doesn't read like OR to me, it's citing Kaballa's opinion, not the author's, but doesn't currently deserve its own article. --Dweller 08:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Which Kabbalah? Zohar, Sefer Yetzirah, Kavvanoth, Henoch? See my example about "science" below. JFW | T@lk 11:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because this qualifies as a violation of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Do not merge this trash into the Kabbalah article which is fairly well organized. IZAK 08:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If this conceptual framework exists at all in Kabbalah (which is not quite clear to me) it is not worth its own article. Presently it is unclear why it is titled this way, it is unsourced (just blindly citing Kabbalah as a source is like saying that "smoking causes cancer, says science"). No merge candidate, no context available for a good merge. JFW | T@lk 11:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As unverifiable. WP:NOR and WP:V requires those who wish to keep an assertion to produce verification when challenged. The prior AFD should have been viewed as such a challenge. Four month later, with no sources, we should view the article as unverifiable. Merge is only appropriate for sourced material, so no merge is right to do, even if the perfect target to merge to was found. GRBerry 14:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable original research. May even be a hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Into Kabbala.Gobawoo 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment – This concept appears to have validity. I have found the following sites which mention the "Seven Worlds":

• Hebrew Wikipedia, at he:שלמה (Solomon), where it claims (unsourced) that these worlds are mentioned in a book he wrote (The "Book of Worlds"), and
• this Kabbalah Centre site (also Hebrew). The Kabbalah Centre site gives these sources:

• ספר הזוהר, תיקוני הזוהר, כרך י"ז, עמוד צ"ו סעיף רט"ז
• ספר הזוהר, כרך י"א פרשת ויקרא, סעיף קל"ז-קמ"א, קמ"ד

Also, there are some few details mentioned in English at the following sites:

• http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/zohar/the_book_of_zohar/heavens_and_earth.htm
• http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_1/115000/115523/1/preview/Legends_of_the_Jews_Volume_1.pdf

Finally, the Kaballah Centre site makes it seem that these worlds are physical planets, which I assume is not the only interpretation.

So the question is: Is this a notable concept that deserves mention? I have found very little actual information aside from the Hebrew Kabbalah Centre site, which is very similar to the information in the article. The four sites above were not easy to find, either. --Eliyak T·C 19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete – Based on the above, the seven worlds concept, although real, seems to be non-notable, and would not be appropriate in the context of the Kabbalah article or on its own terms. --Eliyak T·C 19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per User:OfficeGirl, above. Smeelgova 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC).
• Delete per nom and OfficeGirl. EVula 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per WP:RS. A source request was issued months ago, no sources have been provided. Most of us editors don't know enough about the field to tell if this is reliable material or total hooh-hah. That's why thesourcing policy is there. If no sources are provided in reasonable time, the article should be deleted, and that should be that. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete don't merge. if the topic is recreated with source we can review it again then. Jon513 12:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete not verifiable. Mukadderat 17:29, 23 October 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.