Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geomancy of Divinity

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geomancy of Divinity

Pseudo-science / new age twaddle. Not quite original research because the author has already published it here but thinks, for some strange reason, that removing the external link makes the article all right. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference:- [1]

The good thing about Wikipedia is its providing the freedom for bringing past knowledge into the present in preparation for a new age (of peace)for mankind.

The writer removed the link because it did go to a personal website so it could be seen as personal opinion as it obviously has. However the writer assures the gentleman who has opted for its deletion that the article draws on past wisdoms of mankind and cites the above reference as a starting point.

The writer would like the article to stay but can only now leave it up to Wikipedia to be the judge. Ddoorr (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's WP:OR despite being published on a private website already. Also WP:BOLLOCKS, obviously. Sandstein (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: you say WP:BOLLOCKS, and yet we keep Space opera in Scientology scripture. Just a thought. You shouldn't marginalize it just because it's new-age and not mainstream. If notability and verifiability can be establish, it should be kept without prejudice. Celarnor (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not because it's Pseudo-science or New Age twaddle, neither of which are reasons for deletion, but because it isn't notable Pseudo-science or New Age twaddle. Annamonckton (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article's only reference does not come close to meeting Wikipedia referencing standards. The article is basically an essay full of a lot of...er...unusual claims that appear to be original research. Notability for this...uh...theory is not asserted, much less verifiable, and the whole load of ~~boll~~...um...that is...information is presented as fact when it is clearly someone's theory. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 15:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 15:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No original research means no original research. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Chris! _ct 18:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 54 ghits assure me this is not notable. And alas, the the authors name bears very close resemblance to the user. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defer Decision - This appears to be too prompt of a decision. It does appear highly unlikely that it should be kept, and the article is written from a strong POV. However, the author should be able to have some time to come up with some legitimate sources to start some cleanup. In a case such as this, discussing it on the talk page should happen first, as something which does not seem notable at first may turn out to be notable afterall. The fact that a book was published on the subject (even if by the sole contributor) would suggest that an opportunity should be given.KV(Talk) 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transmute to air Editor claims that "none of this is original research" but admits to being unable to source any of it (see article Talk). In reference to King Vegita above, editor should be prepared with sufficient sources to at least stand a reasonable chance of acceptability - per WP guidelines - when first posting the article. WP:HEY - while inherently subjective - is still a most useful guide to an article's AfD prognosis and by me this is not gonna make it. Plutonium27 (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossible to rescue this one, unsourced because it is total nonsense below the level where anyone notices. DGG (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2008 (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.