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. There are just no indications that this belief system is of interest to significantly more people than the guy who thought it up. Sandstein 08:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archeosophy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage. Appears to be one guys personal belief, all the sources are authored by that one guy (except for one synthesis to the bible). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEOLOGISM that does not meet the WP:GNG. Needs reliable third party sources that discuss this field with significant coverage, instead of just one guy's belief, or a few mentions. Vcessayist (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one guy was the head of a society, so we're talking one society's beliefs, not one person's. None of its 20+ centers (according to Archeosophical Society) appear to be in English speaking countries, so it could just be a case of looking for sources in the wrong places. Related articles manage to turn up relevant sourcing, Francesco Baroni's "Tommaso Palamidessi et l'Archéosophie" for example. K2709 (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't seem particularly reliable. It's published by a magazine that publishes conspiracy theories etc. I am unable to locate the article. Can you please indicate what significant coverage you found from the source. Bear in mind that Tommaso Palamidessi and Archeosophical Society are not at AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my eyes, Politica Hermetica is significantly more highbrow a source than you're suggesting, but I don't claim to have familiarity with it or indeed that article (yet). It was just intended as a drive-by pointer, a direction I'll start in if I ever get round to researching the topic more fully. K2709 (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is Politica Hermetica? From "Politica+Hermetica"&source=bl&ots=bj_HofbfGc&sig=rWo72afFYyPw-7UdwnRb06eD4wc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rD1zUPfaDdK4hAeQr4GoDw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q="Politica Hermetica"&f=false it appears to be some group about esotericism. The website looks self published. It seems that table of contents is about secret societies, I see it mentions the illuminati. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable third party sources can be found. The originator of the philosophy and the Bible are not sufficient. Kooky2 (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2012 (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.