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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbulon[edit]

For the corresponding request for deletion of the article about the word from Wiktionary, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Jahbulon.

For a history of this article's wiktionary transfer talk, see Talk:Jahbulon#26_Jan_2006

Delete. Non-notable, unverifed, does not meet the criteria for either Wikipedia or Wiktionary, and does not belong on either of them. See Talk:Jahbulon#26_Jan_2006 and the rest of the talk page for more arguments. WegianWarrior 10:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MSJapan 17:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think it would be good to explain the problems specifically with this article as well. The speech is a WP:V problem, and possible copyvio (the author is still alive and writing for Freemasonry Today), and on top of that, it is out of context in this article. The speculative etymology (second section) is by its nature speculative and not fact. Thus it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. The third section is quotations, which are also speculative in nature, as these are guesses on word origins from individuals not trained in linguistics. So what's left to have an article on? MSJapan 19:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unverified and unverifiable. Blueboar 18:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. The claim that Freemasons use the word "Jahbulon" or "Jabulon" as the name of a deity, and discussions about its possible etymology, seem to be attested outside of Wikipedia; Google searches confirm this. Being referred to in Black Athena by Martin Bernal suggests notability, even if that work is mostly bunk. Ideas cannot be copyrighted; a brief quote from a living individual does not turn an article into a copyvio, even if it be copied verbatim. An accuracy dispute is not grounds for deletion. Smerdis of Tlön 21:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but a "pure fantasy" claim is. & if you actually "cleaned up", you would be left with nothing more than a dictionary entry. Period.Grye 10:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This discusion and the corresponding discussion in Wictionary, and the information in the article, are likely being clouded by disinformation inserted by Freemasons who want their secrets to stay secret. 81.159.229.195 07:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. Clean out unverifiable material, but the fact that conspiracy buffs and antimasonists discuss the subject incessantly make it noteworthy, even if they're off the wall. I can see people coming to WP to verify the claims made by the conspiracy theorists and their ilk... Tomer^talk 03:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Tom's idea that people will come to WP to varify the claims made by conspiracy theorists is that their claim is unverifyable. Blueboar 15:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "the problem" with my idea, that's the whole point of my idea. Tomer^talk 17:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec. So you want us to leave this on here to verify a claim, when we don't even have any facts to support the claim in the first place? I must be missing something.MSJapan 17:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & note that it was always, & remains, a wiktionary entry, & a very poor & invalid one at that. Grye 23:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. Sure, it needs a cleanup. But the fact that it raises so many hackles makes it appear notable IMHO. Ifnord 14:52, 1 February 2006 (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.