Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nema

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 No consensus. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nema

Nema (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The only sources for this woman's biography are a web-published book review and her own website. She has published books, but I can't determine whether the publisher is or is not a vanity press. Many of the links leading into this page have run afoul of CSD A7. I suspect this is an occultist "walled garden". Delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless some sources can be provided to establish notability. fbb_fan 15:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I don't really know what the criteria for notability are in a case like this, but a nema+magick-wikipedia Gsearch gets a surprising 19800 hits in various languages. She appears to be the acknowledged creator of "Maat Magick" (don't laugh). Probably quite notable within her community. Stammer 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• keep. Per Stammer. Her books are for sale through Amazon. Sounds kooky and granted cannot find a ton of info about the writer, but she is likely well known in her circle of influence, otherworldly it may be.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Lacks third-party independent sources commenting on the work. The linked review of her book is a dead link. I have not done an extensive study to see if there could be evaluations of her work somewhere out on the web that ought to be added to the article. (When the article is about a lesser-known subject area, and seems rather promotional, I think it's fair to rely on the article creator to bring in the third-party comments). EdJohnston 03:58, 17 May 2007 (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.