Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Invocation

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 keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Talkpages, not deletion discussions, are the fora for discussing merges and redirects. The possibility of merging the content of this article elsewhere or redirecting this title to another article is left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 12:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Invocation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on the basis of 'Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook' and 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information' Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The opening paragraph is encyclopedic. The verbatim wording should go, however. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Alice Bailey. Once the big quote is removed it is only one paragraph and that is not enough to justify a separate article. I can't see scope for it to develop further. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per DanielRigal. Luksuh 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've removed the verbatim section. Merge sounds good- redirect as people might search for this. I've heard of it.:) special, random,Merkinsmum 19:46, 5 April 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.