Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argchymist

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Argchymist

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Argchymist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article is about a term that appears to be used almost exclusively by new-age author Alexander Roob, without any coverage from secondary sources that would make the term wp:notable.

Neither Google Scholar nor even straight Google yield any result. Google Books has two early modern primary sources, Coelho's novel, and one other modern new-age source.

There are no wp:reliable secondary sources to base an article upon here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Philosophy, Magic, and Spirituality. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Clearly not notable. Probably just a pun on German "arg" (bad, wicked) + Alchymist, especially since the Rosarium philosophicum was published in Frankfurt. Can't find secondary sources either. Iluzalsipal (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Look closely at the image. The caption reads "The ALCHYMIST..." (not "the Argchymist..."). If the author is going to plainly misrepresent the caption of an image, that doesn't speak well for the other source that is offline. I suspect this may even be a hoax. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, the caption is also wrong in the source of the image. Iluzalsipal (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not notable, author doesnt even have an article. Metallurgist (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- lacks SIGCOV even in a general websearch for the term, to note, the secondary citation does pop up in our Wikipedia Library.Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2025 (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.