Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kia (occult)

: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. JForget 12:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

=[[Kia (occult)]]=

:{{la|Kia (occult)}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Kia (occult)}})

Half article self-referenced. Remaining references are from fringe sources. Article appears to be on a non-notable metaphysical claim of a single occultist. Some in-universe issues. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

delete as quite nonnotable. - Altenmann >t 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. This nomination is a serious misreading of the actual fringe theory guidelines. "Fringe theory" is defined therein this way: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Spiritual and metaphysical beliefs, however obscure, cannot fall within this definition. They cannot be falsified, in a Popperian sense. Moreover, the content of these beliefs define their mainstream for believers.

This article is about a rather vaguely defined belief devised by Austin Osman Spare, a significant figure in esotericism. There is no "mainstream" against whom Spare's view can contrast, unless you imagine that "mainstream" to be those who reject Spare's system; that would introduce an unacceptable positivist bias. And treating spiritual beliefs as if they were works of fiction - the only possible significance of "in-universe issues" - would also introduce bias. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

::I disagree with your interpretation of WP:FRINGE vis-a-vis non-falsifiable subjects.Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
delete - nonnotable: someone's personal occult term not reasonably discussed. Mukadderat (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete too vague to be included as a separate article. Any necessary material can be included in his article. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Austin Osman Spare if there a 3rd party references. Religion and occult topics should be documented if it's more than a single person's delusion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

: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.