Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occult or Exact Science?

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 and redirect to Helena Blavatsky. There is clear consensus against having an article on this topic and there isn't a compelling argument put forth for keeping the article history "underneath" a redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Occult or Exact Science?

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

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

An article about a non-notable 24 page article. The page has extensive references, but none of it establishes notability - there appears to be zero significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Even if one were to use WP:BKCRIT for a short article, it doesn't meet any of the criteria. --tronvillain (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. --tronvillain (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --tronvillain (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Helena Blavatsky. No significant sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The criticism section superficially looks like it establishes notability, but when you read the actual sources it turns out that NONE of them mention this particular article. Very poor form indicative that maybe the contributions of the main authors who pulled the wool over our eyes should be examined more carefully for other similar attempts. jps (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Helena Blavatsky, no notability outside her.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - I note that using sources that don't mention the article subject seems pretty common with this editr. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (not seeing a reason to delete the history) to the Blavatsky article. I will say, however, that I'm pretty sure I've come across this work before, and I'm scarcely more than casually interested in occult silliness. i.e. I have a feeling that it's significant, but feelings without evidence at AfD are about as credible as the "science" in question. This article in particular is included in many works on synesthesia, but I cannot see, with a quick search, anything that would justify a stand-alone article at this time. Since it's quite possible that a lot of the sources that would show notability are old enough as to not show up in standard searches, I wouldn't be opposed to userfying this should the article creator request it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What particular reason is there to keep the history though? To preserve a record of an OR essay about a Theosophy article? Unless it's to preserve it as an example of the type of articles being created. --tronvillain (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Rhododendrites. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rhododendrites. James500 (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect or redirect and don't merge I don't agree with Rhododentrite's "not seeing a reason to delete the history", since several earlier comments explicitly talked about the content being coatrack stuff added by disruptive editors pulling the wool over our eyes. I would argue that there is no reason to assume they won't try to take an AFD consensus not to delete the history as an excuse to re-add the content elsewhere. This content should not be preserved without explicit consensus to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a particularly strong opinion about deleting the history. I would just err on the side of not. The sorts of issues with the page don't strike me as the kind that are problematic to keep only in the history (i.e. BLP, copyvio, advertising, personal essay -- which this may verge upon but meh -- etc.). Maybe because I haven't dug as deeply as some others here, I've not seen the sort of egregious behavioral issues that would lead me to assume something other than good faith. If they're unclear about whether it should be added elsewhere, after all, why wouldn't they just add it elsewhere regardless of whether it's deleted? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An interesting disagreement specifically other whether the page history should be deleted prior to a redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Storm in a teacup. I am happy with either. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: It's not the end of the world if it's a simple delete, but it's hard for me to see how this article is anything other than a personal essay about the subject. --tronvillain (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2018 (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.