Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biography work

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biography work

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not able to discern what the topic is here. The article seems to be an unsourced essay, not to mention very over-capitalized. Is there a notable topic here that someone can point out so we can fix it, or should we just delete it? Dicklyon (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a western esotericism philosophical concept. I see some journal sources describing "biographical work", but they appear to be talking about different concepts. Maybe there are sources for this, but I'm leaning delete as the article is too incoherent to properly describe what it's about. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is mainly the work of two WP:SPAs, Neckarpro in 2011 and Biographyworker in 2016–17, who edited nowhere but this article. I don't how it has survived until now. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to discern the topic, seems to have some weird link spam thing going on at the bottom. Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fringe concept based on(?) anthroposophy that's not independently notable enough for its own article. The 'literature' at the bottom is also just cruft. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia does expose quackery. That's why in quackery topics I lean for keep. This article is typical for Anthroposophical articles, which do applaud the practice for many claimed merits, but never explicitly tell what the practice really is. Like what biography work is and how it's done (i.e. its method) should remain a secret. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if you aren't really, really, REALLY interested in esotericism, this will be patent nonsense to you. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2024 (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.