Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangreal Sodality
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 Merge. Thanks for completing it. I'm not completely sold that the organization's name should redirect to the bio, but instead should be the other way around. I won't change it now, but if there's interest, it can be discussed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sangreal Sodality
Notability not asserted and googling shows little indication of any notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page because the subject seems only "notable" as the originator of the above:
Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, the lead of Sangreal Sodality does assert notability -- both in that it's been noted/studied by others and that it has multiple chapters across continents. I'd be happier that the notability has been demonstrated if there were a few more third-party references to people who have noted the organization. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- merge yes, they assert notability, and agreed that the notability is somewhat doubtful. The material in the 2 articles is very similar, and at most its worth a single article--I suggest for Gray. DGG (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree the two articles should be merged, though I'm uncertain yet in which direction. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The subject of the article, a group called Sangreal Sodality, seems not to to be notable. The only independant support for the claim of notability in the article is a supposed reference in a book by John Michael Greer, The New Encyclopedia of the Occult. There are indeed two mentions of Sangreal Sodality in Greer's book, but it is of William Gray's four volume series of books with that title, and not of the group which has the same name [1]. The first intery, on p.209, has no mention of the group, only of Gray's books. In the entry second, on p.418,there are two sentences, at the very end of that entry, that mention the Sangreal Sodality group, and the first of the two sentences calls Gray's effort to found the groups only a "moderate success". It seems clear that The New Encyclopedia of the Occult says nothing that establishes the notability of the Sangreal Sodality group, and the group is almost unmentioned.
- In addition, much of the article is nothing more than blatant advertising for the Sangreal Sodality group, and it reads like a promotional brochure intended to attract new members to that group. There is not even a hint at an effort to achieve neutrality. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've merged it and cleaned it up a little. As it stands (as a single bio article), keep. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. Already merged and set up as a redirect, which I believe was the right course here. Pastordavid (talk) 15:34, 15 May 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.
