Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Pullet

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to keep, so I won't delete it now, but if the content was a copyvio it will be deleted as such per the procedure at WP:CP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black_Pullet

Fanciful and unverifiable information on non-notable book. Google search for "Black Pullet" "magical talismanic rings" produces just 14 results.
Magick-cruft, not encyclopaedia material. 80.255 23:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- Search for "Black Pullet" grimoire and you'll find more results. --Howcheng 23:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Amren ^(talk) 02:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Of all the reasons: "Fanciful and unverifiable information on non-notable book" - are you a fool? There is an external link to an ACTUAL source which is in fact the book itself! Not to mention the fact that if you Google the term Black Pullet it comes up with lots of results referring to the book, look on Amazon.com where you can still buy the book - The Black Pullet. It's not "Black Pullet magical talismanic rings", it's a book about the Science of Magical Talismans. I reccomend you research or even read the article properly before you put it up for deletion, this is just ridiculous trigger-happy deletionism taking place! Piecraft 14:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You can buy the book on amazon - as you can almost every other book that has been written in the last century! Are we to have articles on every book sold by amazon!? This is not a notable book! As for the "actual source" - this doesn't make it notable. I maintain that this book is not notable; it's obscure and generally not of a level of relevance that merits inclusion here. 80.255 17:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope you're not being serious with that above comment, because it is plainly clear that you have no idea about what you are taling about. We might as well put Necronomicon up for deletion as well then. There is more detailed information about the origins of this book from [The Study of Solomonic Magic in English] by Don Karr. Piecraft 17:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Look up on [Google] and you will find more than enough results, look on the other pages as well. Also please look on [Amazon.com] for the book itself. If you don't understand or know anything about the occult I would reccomend you do not try to use your unqualified opinion to condemn an article which is based on an actual Grimoire which is even listed in the article of Grimoires on Wikipedia.

• • Reading your reasons make me laugh 80.255, when it's blatantly obvious you're a hypocrite - if no one believes me see for yourself in the VfD for Outsourcing to India Talk page, and I quote:
• Keep, notable book. 80.255 20:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Why notable? Amazon.com Sales Rank: #540,801 in Books as compared to... Dlyons493 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

unquote. Looks to me as though you like to throw that word "notability" around but only use it to your own advantage.

I have noted your attempt at ad hominem objection to this listing, and also the fact that you have failed to provide any acceptable objection! "Outsourcing to India" deals with a topic of far greater inportance than this supposed 'book', and the former produces far more google hits, too. 80.255 00:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a direct copy from the first review on amazon. I have listed it as a copyvio. Zoe 22:58, August 25, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.