Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Septemism

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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Septemism

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

Article discusses the ideas exposed in a single book, Reclaim - The Septemist Manifesto, for which I haven't been able to find any sources that were not book sellers or self-published sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to a seminar on this today at my university. It seems this article was written just after that. Of course that seminar is not online. However, I haven't heard of the subject before. I got home and googled it. Found this page. So, according to me the article shouldn't be deleted. It is probably a quite small subject, but it is still relevant. Me and some other students at least found the seminar quite interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundance7 (talk • contribs)

Sundance7, I find this potentially interesting too, which is why I went looking for sources at all. But all articles on Wikipedia need reliable, third-party sources, and if those are not available, we can't have an article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I checked out the sources of the book previously mentioned, and thus I could add a few sources apparently used in the book. However, I am new to Wikipedia. So I have to excuse myself id I edited the article in ways which are not standard. In any case, I tried my best. As I said, just found this interesting so wanted to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundance7 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit, because it added an original synthesis to the article. The point is not that the book described in the article is not properly sourced or wrong or whatever — it's that no third-party sources critically can be found that assess "Septemism" so that we can write an encyclopedic overview that is not just a book summary. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there is a notable movement or ideology here that can justify the article title. I am not seeing hits for it in Google News, Books or Scholar apart from a tiny bit of noise (including an Islamic astrological cult of the same name). The book would be a possible alternative subject but I don't see hits for that either. I'd expect to see reviews and the like from RS sources but I don't. Add to that the massive conflict of interests and I see no hope for the article although I do sympathise with Sundance7. You can't blame students for thinking that their University would give them seminars on notable topics. I wonder whether one of the profs has been a bit naughty and is promoting their own pet theory. OTOH, maybe this is a new and genuinely emerging subject that will become more notable later. If so, the article can be remade when that happens, without the COI problems. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: I would expect universities to present new and exciting ideas as well as the ones we consider "notable" on WP (but I've seen my share of professors' pet theories :). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. While universities can (and should) present all manner of new ideas, the lagging notability indicator of Wikipedia means we should not have an encyclopedia article on those ideas until they meet the WP:GNG, at the risk of unduly promoting or elevating a WP:FRINGE subject that is of interest to an extreme minority. Septemism might eventually become an established theory (I'm still not quite sure what it is), or be laughed out of existence, or forever be the pet theory of a Mr. Carl Grip. Since we can't cite lecture notes, delete for now, with no prejudice towards recreation should multiple secondary sources arise. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2015 (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.