Talk:New Aeon English Qabala

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Article needs greater context

That is why the {{context}} template was put on the article. IZAK 11:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

New Aeon English Qabala -> "Cipher 6" or, if that seems too ambiguous, "ALW Cipher"

Every part of the current title seems POV or false. "New Aeon" endorses a disputed interpretation of the Book of the Law (more than one, in fact, and people who care might check what Cipher 6 says about this part of the name). You can use it for any Latin alphabet language, not just English. (It has no values for accents and the like, but then Hebrew Gematria has no vowels.) And as the article notes, "Qabala" includes more than a method of numeration (technically called gematria or a cipher). Dan (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved, per request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move is disputed and page has been moved back. New Aeon English Qabala is the actual name of the system given to it by its originators, under which it was published and by which it is referred. Wikipedia should not take side as to whether or not some people see "New Aeon" as any sort of endorsement of anything. It is not a trademarked phrase and not unique to the so-called Book of the Law, the book of a fringe belief held by only a couple thousand people. Valtyr (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is incorrect. The originators named the system English Qaballa (yes, the funny spelling is correct). Subsequent writers, either Greenfield or Del Campo, came up with the New Aeon English Qabala designation. I'm not really sure which name is used more, but I suspect the article should be moved to English Qaballa over the redirect. 209.30.129.152 (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contest deletion

This is a valid topic covered by multiple sources and authors. Article appears to be well cited, and multiple sources indicate notability within its admittedly narrow subject. 209.30.129.152 (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm getting frustrated with wikipedia articles that unfairly ask for deletion. just b/c you disagree with something doesnt mean it should be deleted. i feel that some will make a case for deletion, persuading the wiki community who is not that familar with the debate, over to there side. ive seen this done two other times in the occult community.

the new aeon english qabala certainly is worth of an article. if you think there flaws in the system, put those in a seperate category in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.89.76 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]