Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Wicca

Christian Wicca

Not notable, poorly referenced. What's next, an article for Islamic Atheism or Pastafarian Buddhism? TotesBoats 10:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's misrepresentation to say that it's unreferenced. There's references, and external links. Maybe it's poorly referenced, but then it needs a cleanup, not deletion. Recurring dreams 11:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alright. --TotesBoats 11:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment. Agree it's poorly referenced and needs cleanup, but I'm not (yet) prepared to call for retention or deletion. I looked at the page history and the talk page comments. It appears as if the article was plagued with POV pushing and original research in the past. Some effort was made to clean it up but this has stalled. I've tagged the article for lack of references and citations. Dbromage [Talk] 11:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. --RucasHost 12:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Per WP:JNN, "simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable". Dbromage [Talk] 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an easy one. There are verifiable sources online. Every page needing cleanup does not deserve deletion. Nutty as it is, it deserves a page. MarkinBoston 16:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. I'm suspicious that the article relies so heavily on a gaudy looking paperback, going so far as to link to its page on amazon.com; but that can be fixed. Ichormosquito 16:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup. I'd never heard of it, but the sources cited establish notability and verifiability. Referenced well enough to survive deletion, needs serious cleanup.-Fagles 21:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarkinBoston, Fagles and Ichormosquito. Oh, I've heard of it; there was a controversy in the Episcopal church a few years ago about this. It is referenced, albeit poorly. Bearian 01:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm beginning to get the impression of an aggressive campaign to delete articles relating to small religions, which is basically antiencyclopedic. The subject matter is inherently notable, regardless of the quality of the article. RandomCritic 02:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please note that the two editors calling for deletion (above) have now been formally linked in an allegation of sock-puppetry. If proved, this does indeed seem a highly suspicious campaign against an article (and related articles) which the majority do consider notable. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Enough evidence to call this a bad faith nom and speedy close? Dbromage [Talk] 10:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]