Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djwal Khul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. KrakatoaKatie 05:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Djwal Khul

Djwal_Khul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per my nomination. --Snooziums 20:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: 19,000 Google hits, and the article is sourced. I'm genuinely thinking now that nom's run of AfDs on psychic/New Age articles need careful examination, because this cut-and-paste approach is carrying on apparently without even the most cursory examination as to whether the subject is notable, despite nom's assertion that he has done such a search. RGTraynor 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per RGTraynor and please do not do WP:POINT mass AFD nominations by cutting and pasting the same comments about supposed unsuccessful searches for sources when others can find the sources readily. Edison 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, meritless WP:POINT nomination AlfPhotoman 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • keep seems notable, but I note that there do not seem to be 3rd party sources. The refs. seem to be to his own published works. DGG 00:31, 13 March 2007 (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.