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.
Keep: topic is both notable and
Thelema is a recognized religion with tens of thousands of adherents. Moreover, the "fringeness" of a religion is not a reason for deletion.
Ashami06:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)reply
KeepAleister Crowley's works were taking up a good amount of shelf space last time I visited a New Age/metaphysical bookstore. Granted, he only claimed to be the devil, but I'm still missing how part of the work of one of the great occultists of the last century, which has considerably influenced many new religious movements such as
Wicca, can be seen as "non-notable".
Kiti07:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a useful article. 'Per my norm' is inadequate reason to delete anything.
Daimonos 10am GMT April 17 This new user's only edits are to Thelema-related AfDs. -
99915:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete and merge to
Thelema. The religion is significant enough to be encyclopedic, while the concepts within it may not be notable enough to merit separate articles and should be included in the main article, if at all.
Ekajati14:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect to
Thelema, for the same reasons as City of the Pyramids and other Crowleycruft. Notable only as part of this field of "knowledge substitute".
Barno15:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep The Thelma article is large enough on it's own and since Wikipedia isn't paper, there is nothing wrong with having more information on it. Since Thelma is the basis of most modern occultism, it's pretty far from nn. That Thelema is a "Fringe religion" doesn't mean anything. Greek polytheism could also currently be considered a "fringe religion" but Greek mythology is still important from a historical perspective.
Shadowoftime22:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - to correct misrepresentation, Thelema is hardly the basis for "most moderrn occultism" - modern occultism is an extremely large topic, and there are many large, well-established occult organizations which are non-Thelemic, even anti-Thelemic. The second supporting argument is ill-conceived as well, but I will leave the reason for that as an exercise for the reader. :-) -
99915:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment If major, well-established occult organizations consider themselves anti-Thelemic, that shows the influence of Thelema just as much as if they considered themselves pro-Thelemic. (why bother considering yourself anti-Thelemic if Thelema is just a non-notable fringe religion?) The question here is the verifiability and notablility of Thelema, not whether or not people like it.
Shadowoftime22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - you like to mischaracterize people's positions, don't you? I never said that Thelema was non-notable. I believe that it is notable. It is the specific concepts that are not notable enough to have separate articles. They can all be described in the main article. -
99901:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, avoid merging, and expand The Thelema parent article is already pushing the boundaries of useful size, and this is another topic not adequately covered by the existing text. For similar odd once-stubbish articles about minor beliefs in fringe religions, see
Kolob, or
Xenu (the latter article eventually became a front page FA).
Ronabop 05:35, 20 April 2006
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.