Talk:The Hermetic Tradition

This page was proposed for deletion by 92.29.23.141 (talk · contribs) on 26 February 2015 with the comment:
non notable pamphlet
It was contested by Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) on 2015-03-01 with the comment:
seeing sufficient sources out there to merit a real discussion about deletion (AfD)

Books

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature

Redirect[edit]

I restored the redirect. If the editor intends to work on these articles, it may be better done in userspace, vs mainspace, as the content is not suitable for inclusion at this time and the single source is not indicative of notability just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK, and the Google-books shotgun approach to sources suggests Wikipedia:Bombardment. This source was misrepresented. While it does cover Evola, and Eberling does appear qualified, it only mentions the book itself as part of a single paragraph which. It only said that many adherents view it as important. This needs work before being restored to mainspace. Grayfell (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praised by Jung[edit]

The article's sole reference does discuss Jung's approval of the book, but only as a couple of paragraphs of a much longer, relatively obscure book. It would be prudent to provide actual context here, as well as page numbers. Evola rejected Jung's ideas, as the source takes great pains to make clear, which also seems significant. Although the praise and citation by Jung does certainly help with WP:NBOOK, I do not believe it's nearly enough by itself without more substantial sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]