Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochian angels 2

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 no consensus to delete. Note that references were added after many people commented. W.marsh 13:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enochian angels

Originally researched, unsourced, list in relation to a 16th century text by by John Dee and Edward Kelley. Article was previously nominated for deletion in September 2005 here hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unverified original research, with no reliable sources. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete primarily listcruft and OR. Kavadi carrier 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The names of most Enochian angels are derived from several complicated tables of letters through a fairly mechanical process, and little is published about each individual angel. I imagine that this list is just a large collection of these. --mkehrt 11:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep only if properly sourced This article could be useful if properly sourced. Enochian angels play a key role in John Dee's life and work. Stammer 17:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR by default for having no external sources... since 2005! Too bad for the minor angel Hxgzd and his colleagues. Sandstein 23:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect if it really can't be made into a proper article. John Dee was a hugely important historical figure, and this represents some of his most enduring work. Merge to his main article at least, but we could easily have a proper article on this subject if only someone cared to write one. Friday (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• There are hundreds of redirects to this since many of the angels used to have their own articles and they were all merged into this list. Perhaps just the list could be removed since the text may be easier to source than each entry on the list. Angela. 00:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Reliable sources exist out there, in the great land known as "print media". This article was started back in 2004 by User:Danny, who now works full time for the Foundation, and said on the talk page back in April 2005 that at least one source was used. Given the amount of science fiction Dee has appeared in in recent years, multiple works of which mentioned/used these angels, sorting out the fancruft from the real stuff online is more than I want to dive into. GRBerry 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are many reliable print media sources for this material. All this article needs a single good citation. --Davecake 04:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The topic is notable, and I have added sources and an external link to the article. I'm ambivalent about whether it's worth keeping the entire list, but the article itself is definitely worth keeping. --Elonka 08:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - but scrap the list I was sadly disappointed by the article. Why is there so little about the subject? I can't see any reason simply to list all the Angels, but that has nothing to do with an AfD, since the subject itself deserves an entry. --Mike 19:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and keep the list--they appear in numerous compendiums of mythology and the occult. Much better than getting a crappy stub about each article. Danny 20:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How do you know it's original research? —JonMoore 17:46, 8 November 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.