Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IAO131

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. Coredesat 03:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IAO131

IAO131 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Appears to be non-notable person. Only sources are blogs and self-published. Recreation of apparently speedy-deleted material. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete again (as I already tagged once), not notable, appears to be promotional/vanity. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Looks very non-notable and self-aggrandizing. Goochelaar (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with above comments. --Thiebes (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has similar significance as the pages of Lon DuQuette, Allen H. Greenfield, Richard Kaczynski, and Nema (occultist): they are all notable figures in the field of occultism; they are also all notable figures in the field of Thelema, Aleister Crowley's religious philosophy. Sections were removed that dealt less with area of expertise. His main contribution is a new Journal dedicated to an academic and non partisan stance of Modern Thelema - perhaps an article on this Journal would be more in store than one on its creator? Psionicpigeon (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If the person is notable, demonstrate it by e.g. providing citations where his work has been reviewed in a major publication. Similarly, if the journal you refer to is notable then it should be easy to find citations of it in scholarly publications. If not, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Thiebes (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Already done once by myself due to the lack of any notability. Jmlk17 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete: article was speedily deleted yesterday; author recreated it and it is just as non-notable as before. Mh29255 (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• strong delete shameless self-promotion with no reliable sources citedBeeblbrox (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (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.