Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enbrightenment

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enbrightenment

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

I believe that this article fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. It is on a concept written about by one author, and I can't find any secondary sources that discuss it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siddha Buddha: I would like to get the article in shape to not be deleted. What do you mean no secondary sources? 1: In theology, a neologism is a relatively new doctrine (for example, Transcendentalism). In this sense, a neologist is one who proposes either a new doctrine or a new interpretation of source material such as religious texts.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The issue is that there seems to be no coverage of the doctrine by people other than the person who initially proposed it. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for the type of sources we would need to find to keep the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is one example of a source discussing the author's writings. http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=418236&page=11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Looking at that first source: Exactly what is a source for anything there? The part where one unidentifiable person with no determinable reputation for fact checking and accuracy says "fuck you stupid!" or the part where another unidentifiable person with no determinable reputation for fact checking and accuracy says "I am made of marijuana."? You seem to have the wrong idea of what verifiability and reliable sources are. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to offer a few more links. http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/topic/161-esoteric-traditions/
You have to scroll down the list to find Jared Kimble on this one. http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/RatingsO.htm
blog discussion
http://spiritualnetworks.com/blog/83252/ego-worship/
I can offer more, but hope this moves me forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) 23:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Again, we have unidentifiable people with with no determinable reputation for fact checking and accuracy, WWW pages that don't actually document this subject at all, and an inventor talking about xyr own invention. Again, you haven't shown reliable independent sources. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added some links to critical discussions of Enbrightenment on the page. Siddha Buddha (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I have rearranged the page and added lots of references for the use of the word enbrightenment. Siddha Buddha (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Galilean Library is well known.

Not all sources are dependable, but Galilean Library is, and I have two separate links that show the use and appearance of the word back in 2005. Some links are there to show that the word is taking on a life in society, and being part of major product line names, and other products, along with various people using the word for their own spiritual descriptions of life. Siddha Buddha (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Galilean Library link you provided above is merely the author of the book trying to promote his idea on an internet forum. Also, I'm afraid that other people using the term doesn't help satisfy WP:NEO either. I understand that you feel strongly about this guru, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote his views. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else made some nice changes. Have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) 05:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Siddha Buddha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO as this is not a word recognised by dictionaries such as the OED. Warden (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The real subject, Jared J. Kimble, has a couple of his own books in a book search, and the first two pages of results in a web search are social networking pages. He is the author of every reference in the article, so I'd say there's no notability here. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any third-party reliable sources that give significant coverage to this subject. It fails WP:GNG by a lot. First Light (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2012 (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.