Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Wicca

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. John254 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  - Comment. In my opinion, yes. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 13:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs more, and better references. Creating this article without utilizing Original Research is going to be hard work. Remaining neutral in the process is also going to be hard work. None the less the article can be cleaned up/improved on. This conflux of religions has popped up in several Christian denominations. It has been fought over in several Wiccan, Pagan, and Neo-pagan organizations. The article will no doubt be subject to a semi-perpetual edit war. None the less that doesn't mean that the subject matter is without merit. (I also agree with Random Critic that there is an effort underway to delete religious material that is not part of the popular culture from Wikipedia.)(Close with Speedy Keep would be appropriate here.)jonathon 20:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable, with alright research. Salvatore22 22:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article may need cleanup, but has encycolpedic value, and to my knowledge, there is no reason for deletion. It does not meet qualifications for deletion and only has two arguments for deletion, neither user has replied back. Sephiroth storm 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I regard the content as theological nonsense, but looks as if it describes a genuine POV held by a certain body of people. Accordingly it is encyclopaedic and should be retained. If there is an issue of ther being edit wars, let them fight it out! If there are differing views of what is the correct view, the best solution is to present both, provided they can both be adequately referenced. This articel is about a syncretic belief; accordingly it is inevitable that views will differ as to how much to take from one side and how much from another. Peterkingiron 11:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Early Anglo-Saxon sources such as the "lacnunga" show the mixing of folk magic and Christian symbols. The sources available in limited views in Google Book Search [1] describe "Christian Wicca" as a 1990's California online thing. But they DO describe it, indicating that it probably satisfies WP:N. From the limited/snip views it is hard to judge how numerous its adherents are, so the "weak" keep. Orthodox/catholic/evangelical/mainstream protestant Christianity cannot be expected to take kindly to adding Wiccan bits to their doctrines and liturgies, and would find them heretical, but syncretism has a long tradition of the mixing of reeligions. A likelihood of POV pushing or editorial disputes is not a reason to delete an article. Edison 18:37, 27 August 2007 (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.