Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochian chess

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 keep. Adequate sourcing is present. With regard to

Enochian chess

Enochian chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-Notable

• Delete per nom. Bubba73 (talk), 13:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would have suggested a merger to chess variant, but the structure of that article is to have subpages for each such variant, so merger would require a complete overhaul for the sake of consistency. The references are adequate; the magical practices of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn are well documented, and a big deal in some circles, so it's not surprising they have descendants. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The fact that Golden Dawn has descendant is not the matter of this AfD. This chess variant, created by Golden Dawn is non-notable
  WP:Trivia regarding the org. That is the reason for the AfD.Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not really. FWIW, the Golden Dawn left an elaborate description of the game as one of their official teaching documents. I have expanded the article a bit with information from those documents, and also documented its actual use in play. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment With respect to contributions to improve quality of article I still think it is a piece of WP:TRIVIA about Golden Dawn. All refs are golden dawn references. There is nothing to suggest the game has ever been played by a non-member. As such I don't think it is notable even with much improved refs. Notwithstanding that good job on the refs.Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand where you're coming from. But for the structure of the chess variant page and its related sub-pages, as I noted above, I'd happily see this merged into it along with dozens of other minor chess variant articles. Only some of the sources are actually Golden Dawn sources; others are sources about the Enochian magical tradition, which predates it by several centuries. But all the sources have something to do with occultism. This particular chess variant requires a bit more elaborate description than some, if only because of the imaginative world that inspired it, so there's more to it than other chess variants that include various fairy chess pieces.
  
  Now, the Golden Dawn is in fact a very big deal in the Western Mystery traditions of the English speaking world. They had unusually influential teachings and very prominent members. They were the Microsoft of the arcane. Being even a minor feature of the Golden Dawn magical tradition does confer notability, IMO, even if similar features of less foundational arcane traditions do not merit such recognition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I'm familiar with the topic and its notability is significantly larger than the article currently demonstrates; it's of significant interest to anyone wanting to gain an understanding of McGregor Mathers, the Golden Dawn, other Golden Dawn members (including Aleister Crowley or William Butler Yeats) or the culture of turn of the century occultist groups. It's illustrative of McGregor's personality, of the way the Golden Dawn (and to other extent other groups like the Theosophists) operated, and it ties in with other occultist topics such as the Enochian language, developments of the art of Tarot, and the growth and activities of subsequent Hermetic traditions. I have to confess, though, I'm not at this stage interested personally in improving the article to reflect all that. Failing a decision to keep - possibly move it to the article incubator? Or at the very least merge. It's topic that deserves Wikipedia space somewhere. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re references - I believe Israel Regardie's book on the Golden Dawn talks about Enochian Chess; I think Ellic Howe's book might as well. If it comes to it I suppose I'll get out my own references and improve the article. -- DustFormsWords (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe it is sufficiently notable. I've seen references to it in quite a number of books on chess variants, including Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. The "game" is also listed on the Chess Variants Pages.Smiloid (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not just another chess variant, but considered an occult ritual by one on the most notable Western groups of that type. amples sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments by Ihoyc and Edward321 that Order of the Golden Dawn is a notable organization well received and understood. But their chess variant still strikes me too much of
  WP:TRIVIA. If the order of the golden dawn had a special way of playing dominoes would that also be notable? Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2009 (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.