Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic Doctrine (Samael Aun Weor)

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. Nandesuka 15:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic Doctrine (Samael Aun Weor)

This author is not notable enough to have this terribly misnamed article in addition to his biography. Integrate this into bio and delete. People can read his books if they want to know more. WP is not a soapbox. -999 (Talk) 02:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete WP is not a soapbox - you can apparently read all of his work free here also not too many ghits Fails WP:BIO DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 03:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Michael 06:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "of whom which Samael Aun Weor claims to be directed by." Not in the paths of English grammar, apparently. Tevildo 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that this article needs a major cleanup rather than a delete. The bibliography section should be moved to the bio of Samael Aun Weor and useless info should be removed. The article is too long to be moved to the bio now. I would rather propose an {{attention}} tag.--dead3y3 19:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs cleanup. Theres enough information to validate it and the title needs to be fixed. Zos 19:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note: I am the main contributor to this article. I don't believe 'soapbox' is valid here as the vast majority of the article is not promoting anything (although a few sentences certainly need rewording). --Paul Stone 23:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There can be a fine line between explanation and promotion though after perusing the article I do not believe it has crossed into that territory. Save some minor adjustments that should be made the piece stands on its own and the content, quality of writing and expression is of a commendable calibre. I refute entirely the concept of notability so this is a moot point IMHO. At the end of the day the individual has been influential in particular circles and his views appear sufficiently different from theological Gnosticism that a separate article elucidating these is hardly excessive or indulgent, so the article should stay. (Cf1 16:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)) This is this user's only edit this year. User has only edited one other article previously in 2005, for a total of 8 edits, including this one. 999 (Talk) 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Hanuman Das 00:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is plenty of room in the bio, which is full of inconsequential detail. Try being more concise and sticking to the important points, no one cares what the author ate for breakfast on April 22, 1972. Ekajati 21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this article highly useful in my research. Samael is notable in Spanish/French circles and has a long shadow there even if he is often passed-over by Anglophones. The article could be tighter but I've yet to find another overview of this doctrine that is as concise and lucid as this one. --Dieudonne 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC) This users first and only edit. -999 (Talk) 21:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.