Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochian magic

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enochian_magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No meaningful citations for a long time. Deletion tags and other various tags other issues tags removed by account that has since been banned for being a sock puppet. Topic is cover more completely by various other Wikipedia entries that do have reliable sources. There was a request for reliable sources dating back to 2006 or so before the sockpuppet came in and removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozret (talk • contribs) 2009-06-27 10:32:19

• Keep. A short search gives several reliable-seeming sources, such as [1], [2] and [3] (the first two are by respectable authors, and the third by someone who seems to know what he's talking about even if he does have some strange beliefs) which indicate notability by providing substantial coverage, and therefore justify a dedicated article to my mind. It's true that other articles (e.g. Enochian, Book of Enoch, John Dee - but perhaps you had others in mind) have better sourcing that could be used here too but that seems a reason for making use of those references and not for deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Quite notable topic and covered as it's own topic by many books and encyclopedias. Information is too specific, varied and detailed to be merged to another article -- and going by article naming conventions here, if merging did happen some of those others probably should merge to this one instead of vice versa. DreamGuy (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on sources found by Olaf Davis. Edward321 (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful, based on sources, and notable topic. I came to the article whilst looking up Enochian Magic.--Codell^Talk 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability does not even seem disputed, and the article (while incomplete) already deals with aspects those other 'pedia links do not mention. But don't trust Gerald Suster (the third external link). Go with Lon Milo DuQuette or Israel Regardie. Dan (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Removals of tags is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2009 (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.