Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abrahadabra

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. ✗plicit 00:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahadabra

[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)

The sourcing on this is quite weak - mostly derived from biographical work on Crowley or survey works on the Thelema new religious movement. The very few sources from outside this walled garden could easily be rolled into Abracadabra or Thelema without trouble. There's honestly about as much about Abrahadabra as needs to be said on the page about the Dimmu Borgir album. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Neutral~~ [but will follow the discussion]. Lawrence Sutin is a notable multi-topic author, and his book on Crowley is a general biography used on many pages. Apparently this meditation technique is used by adherents of Thelema as a focus mantra, and so fits into the Wikipedia collection on this religion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could be summarized in a sentence on another page. This is what I mean - the arguments for this having anywhere near enough material to serve a full article depend on leaning heavily into walled-garden texts from a religion that, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is characterized by attracting adherents from among the sorts of people who like writing books. A novel spelling of Abracadabra having significance to a single NRM is hardly a justification for a full article when this thimbleful of notable material could so easily fit into a parent article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably. But Sutin is notable, and as far as I know not an adherent to Thelema, and his full biography of Crowley seems the main notable book on the life of this 20th century counter-culture figure. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, upon another look the page has adequate secondary sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I somehow agree with nom about inadequate sourcing but still I feel that any article even if it is about very small but known to masses/influential over any period of time shall be given it's space. It should be kept as long as it is verifiable WP:BTMBS. This article meets both WP:N and WP:V. As for sources, there are many available including a full explanation of the term like these - [1] [2] WP:BEFORE. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing might be weak and the article might be in need of some love, but deletion is not cleanup and this does meet WP:N. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:58, 2 May 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.