Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of the Pyramids

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 07:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City of the Pyramids

non-notable concept of a fringe religion 999 05:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Who is to say what is fringe? Its my religion, then am I too fringe to be represented here? I think not. krishnahermes 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my nom. 999 05:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There should be a section for "religioncruft". Danny Lilithborne 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• REDIRECT- To the Thelema page. TydeNet 06:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: topic is notable. Thelema is a recognized religion, large enough to have texts in multiple languages. This is one ref. to CoP; however, CoP is not strictly a Thelemic construct and therefore should not be merged. Cannot find any reason for deletion cited in Wikipedia AfD guide in THIS article. Clea023 07:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

At the moment, this new user's only edit is to this AfD. Weregerbil 12:55, 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 12:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• • But "per my norm" is not what user 999 wrote. "Per my nom" is common shorthand on AfD pages for "for the reasons I stated in my nomination of this article for deletion." Barno 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Thelema. --Eivind^t@c 13:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: CoP is a legit topic that deserves an article. Who gets to judge the importance of a topic like this? If it can be made into a legit article (which it already is), then it should stand. Issues like "fringe" and "non-notable" are discriminatory and have no place on Wikipedia. Somecallmetim 13:20, 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 14:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Thelema. --Terence Ong 15:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Thelema, in agreement with Terence Ong Ekajati. Not everything having to do with a notable topic is itself so notable as to need an article, rather than a couple of sentences in the parent article. A redirect is enough to make the information available to users searching on this name rather than looking first under Thelema or Crowley. Barno 15:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per arguments above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fringe but notable
• Keep no good reason for deletion given. For great justice. 00:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think that important concepts of a notable religion deserve their own page, when they go beyond just a definition. --Joelmills 02:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge per above. Fishhead64 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• 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 (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 23:23, 21 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.