Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place of power

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. T. Canens (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Place of power

[edit]
Place of power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So many reasons. This is horribly sourced to spam sites like sacredsites.com and is pure woo. It overlaps in content with several other articles like Sacred natural site and Shrine and a few others. This was redirected to Energy (esotericism) in this diff by someone else, but that was reverted, so time to just kill this through community discussion. Jytdog (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, when I nominated this, content had already been merged to Energy (esotericism) and the content is already there. So in my view !votes for delete are the same as !votes to merge/redirect. This article should not exist, is the point. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty widely used concept in popular culture[1] for which the term can't seem to survive 30 seconds on related pages. The article makes no attempt to claim anything other than the concept exists, has influenced popular culture, and to highlight exactly the overlap described in the AfD proposal. While I'm sure "Woo" is a highly technical term, the sites were used purely to demonstrate that this is a topic of interest for some. If examination and description of that area of overlap didn't immediate meet [edits like this] I'd agree that no separate article was needed. However, the revival of the page happened because the redirect target didn't even contain the term or a workable reference to the topic to which the term might be attached. Keep. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found many of the sources to be unreliable as well. I also agree that the above referenced articles cover much of the same ideas. I don't think an entire article is needed for popular culture interaction with the idea. Furiousferret (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This I may think is part of the problem, Cope talks about sacred sites, and it is clear that this "places of power" idea encompass that. But these are not shrines dedicated to a thing. Maybe this is what should be done, a move to something like "mystical sites".Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe "sacred sites" as this source calls them [5].Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Sacred sites" or "sacred places" might be more workable as a title, although I think they are still neologisms. But there are at least a few reference works relating to that broad topic area, and it also helps make it clear that the subject isn't about any "places of power" of any individual or groups of individuals. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Sacred sites" aren't the same thing, although many overlap. A sacred site is any location that humans have consecrated by their own choice. A place of power is somewhere believed to be (and disbelieve this if you wish, but there are those who hold with it) a place that had "power" pre-existing to humanity. St Paul's Cathedral and The Oval are sacred sites to their particular groups of followers, but don't have the inherent powerful nature that Watkins describes. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, any suggestions?Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that is a very strange statement. they are the same kind of places from the point of view of those who hold a site "sacred" or see it is a "place of power" - either believer sees some greater "thing" acting there. different words arising from different belief systems for that; "place of power" is new age, and "sacred" is what we use for traditional religions. That is what the refs say. in light of the new-ageyness of "place of power" the redirect to "energy" is an appropriate fallback to delete. but this is really pop culture trivia per the lack of decent refs. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, having myself, in some time I've spent offline reviewing reference sources of all sorts, I don't see the distinction made by Andy above in at least one of the "reference sources" for one of the terms I mentioned above, although, admittedly, at this time, I don't remember which. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That os why some of us think this needs a separate article, precisely because it does not cover only on theory.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced there is enough to merit it's own article, hence the suggestion that it be a subtopic of an existing article on the broader concept. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

[edit]

A few (dodgy) sources

https://sacredsites.com/ http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlaceOfPower (cultural depictions) http://www.nidwalden.com/en/explanation http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Places-of-Mystery-and-Power/ https://cliffseruntine.wordpress.com/cauldron-of-enchantment/natural-places-of-power/ http://www.encyclopedia-of-religion.org/places_of_power.html http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-mystical-magical-places-england.php http://survincity.com/2011/05/places-of-power-and-karmic-geography/

Yes it is Pseudoscience (I am not even sure I would go that far, it utter rubbish), but it is out there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more refs https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aKVNTzWQejEC&pg=PA47&dq=Juan+Matus+%2B+places+of+power&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR2ojn4LXRAhWVOsAKHWoOA1cQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Juan%20Matus%20%2B%20places%20of%20power&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RTVUanO4-9sC&pg=PA157&dq=Juan+Matus+%2B+places+of+power&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR2ojn4LXRAhWVOsAKHWoOA1cQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Juan%20Matus%20%2B%20places%20of%20power&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nYWJGMzuXf8C&pg=PA104&dq=Juan+Matus+%2B+places+of+power&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR2ojn4LXRAhWVOsAKHWoOA1cQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=Juan%20Matus%20%2B%20places%20of%20power&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=b3opAobe2K8C&pg=PA20&dq=Juan+Matus+%2B+places+of+power&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR2ojn4LXRAhWVOsAKHWoOA1cQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q=Juan%20Matus%20%2B%20places%20of%20power&f=false

Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Perhaps you would consider condensing your links by properly framing with a [] pair like [6], and commenting in indented (or bulleted) and clear sections of your own, as you've made a bit of a mess of this page. At any rate, those links don't seem to establish notability, several are from one author and the others are fringey. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
why do you keep bringing terrible sources? Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To show that this is out there, yes I agree the sources are not great, but then this becomes an issue of are the sources RS. The problem is I can remember hearing (And reading) about this some 40 years ago (but not in connection with shamanism). The problem is that all the sources I can find on line cover only (really) that. But then that is hardly a surprise as not all books or magazines are available on line.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


More links (I will try to format them properly)

[[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]] Calls them power points, but the concept is the same.

[[11]]

These are more along the lines of the stuff I recall.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Looking for slightly better sources. I can point to descriptions in this wiki where the term "place of power" is used without a second thought[20][21][22] that aren't included in my list of "cultural references" or the term is used for linguistic clarity[23]. Maybe it should just be a dictionary entry, but it's getting difficult look much of anywhere without coming across some variation on this term in popular culture. Darker Dreams (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Darker Dreams's sources: Passing mention, Different meaning, Different meaning, Doesn't use the term "places of power" (or the alternative titles), Non-notable independent publisher, Non-notable publisher of possibly only two titles, See previous, Maybe RS. The last couple links are to other WP articles and not sources. —PermStrump(talk) 22:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Slatersteven's sources, all self-published or user-generated websites or self-published books using CreateSpace. —PermStrump(talk) 22:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[24] disagrees.Slatersteven (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources don't use the phrase "places of power". Ley lines already has a separate article. —PermStrump(talk) 22:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As places of power and ley lines aren't the same thing, then that's probably for the best. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the sources (my second batch do, do you want the quotes?) do use the term, and this is not just about lay lines, but a much wider concept (as all the sources show).Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Move to close, sources have been provided, and it seems that some users appear to have not even bothered to read the sources we have found (let alone looked themselves).Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

relist

[edit]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: in light of new sources provided, additional discussion should move to consensus in a single relisting period Go Phightins! 04:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 04:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining my previous position. I agree that this page needs significant help. I agree that there is overlap with other articles. However, overlap does not automatically foreclose an article. That overlap is part of the point, given that the articles named as clearly overlapping don't cover the target subject matter. Arguably, that unexplored overlap is clear evidence of link-worthy gap. Admittedly, to produce something to fill that gap requires reliable sourcing. However, I have yet to see any indication of due diligence on the part of the nominator or any of those sharp-shooting efforts to improve the article. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, for those voting delete as overlap, what section or passages people feel adequately covers this (sub)topic. Similarly, for those voting merge, I'd be interested in seeing an attempt to add that information- especially given the history of swift reverts I've already highlighted. Darker Dreams (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It already was merged by nikkimaria and improved there by me: dif series. do not misrepresent what has already happened. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, after this revision I made assumptions based on previous behaviors that would remain the final outcome. I'm not convinced that entirely covers the subject. Incidentally, I've still seen no evidence that you met your due diligence requirements before the AFD prod, which unsurprisingly would probably both move towards filling out that stub-section and, having done that, convincing me that deletion and merging is a reasonable course. Darker Dreams (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world is an "AFD prod"? you keep writing things that make no sense or are just incorrect. gah. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I misspoke. WP:AFD not a WP:PROD. Just because you don't understand, or agree, with what I say doesn't make it lack sense or incorrect. Nor do your regular personal sticks or editorial onomatopoeia add to the persuasiveness of your argument. "gah" and Facepalm Facepalm [25]. Please find your way back to WP:CIVIL. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view you as persuadeable; am just trying to minimize your disruption. Jytdog (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Go Phightins!: I'm a little surprised to see this relisted for lack of consensus. Seems like the overwhelming opinion was to delete. I'm not sure which sources are new, personally I saw all of them. Do you want us each to explicitly agree with Permstrump's analysis of them? The sources are weak and in some cases totally unrelated. It is outside of Wikipedia's scope to document phrases that are very infrequently used, or used coincidentally in different fields unrelated to the use being described in the article. This article seems like more of an attempt to create a new term than to document a notable one. —DIY Editor (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you see such an overwhelming consensus, perhaps you should be a bureaucrat. Even if I were to find a consensus that the article should not be kept (which is borderline), there remain significant discussion points regarding a possible merger or redirect. Leaving this open for seven more days should help clarify some of those issues. Go Phightins! 03:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Go Phightins!: There were 7 delete (with 1 "or" merge and 1 "or" redirect), 1 merge, 1 redirect, 1 merge/redirect, (for 3 total merge, 3 total redirect) and 3 keep. Redirect and merge are both opinions against the article. So we have 10 opinions against and 3 for. So there doesn't seem to be anything borderline about opposition to the article. I think rather than talk of new sources (which were already addressed) the question is only whether a redirect should be left in place and whether any of the material should be retained. So to speak to that, I am not opposed to a redirect to Energy (esotericism), but am opposed to the current material being used verbatim in another article because it is written under the premise of this phrase being in significant use and seems to be WP:SYNTHy. —DIY Editor (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments."[26]. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I know it's not majority rule. So the admin might be discounting the arguments behind some of the delete comments to come to the conclusion that there was a lack of consensus against the article, only I don't see any discussion of that. I see only 3 lone editors out of 13 putting forth any argument to keep the article at all. —DIY Editor (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very interested to see what anyone else would do with this topic. Particularly what information could be found with a concerted attempt. As a point, the first thing I did after building the entire stub that has been under discussion is note that the sources were bad and needed replaced.[27]. Aside from myself and, following the AFD proposal, user:Slatersteven nowhere has there been a discussion of some failed effort to find sources or do anything more than delete as much as quickly as possible. That is, by the way, why I went to WP:BEFORE "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to: B. Carry out these checks; If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)" The only people to show any signs of making that effort are finding things. Yes, every attempt at producing a source has been met with "not-reliable." Of course, when the topic is approached as effectively unsupportable (my interpretation) "like most New Age hooey." [28] it becomes difficult to assume that any attempt to move forward in a legitimate manner will be treated to anything but attempts to simply overcome through saying "nope," regardless of what can be found. Darker Dreams (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that it's a New Age or whatever topic, it's that as a phrase it does not appear notable. Basically a few extremely marginal authors have used it in the sense the article presents it. Finding references to "place of power" or "place" and "power" is not finding "place of power" used as a real term in any significant section of the relevant fields of study. Most incidents of "place of power" (and there are many) are not what is described in the article. That's a problem. —DIY Editor (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I've spent time searching for the phrase several different ways. It just doesn't show up much as a clear term in the parlance of the field of study, but (as I said in my first comment on this AfD) it does show up quite often meaning everything but what is described in the article. Also I changed the section title "Sacred sites" in Energy (esotericism) to "Locations" - seemed more neutral and accurate. Sacred sites is no better than places of power IMO. —DIY Editor (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the discussion of "precisely those words." Truth in advertising; I've never intended to claim that "place of power" is a notable term. Only that it is among those "notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists." The goal is not to advance or document this as a specific term but "to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title."[29]. With your renaming of the Energy_(esotericism) sub-section I can see it as a cleaner fit for merge. I do still have reservations regarding doing so, though, given the results already highlighted of previous attempts at implementation. Darker Dreams (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is partially based on users attempts to make this about one use of the phrase. As well as the idea it can only be about that one phrase and not a wider idea of places of spiritual and magical energy.

[30]

[31] , this discuses it in a more political sense, but still linked to mystical thought.

[32], another for you all to shout "not RS at".

[33], use in fiction Popular culture).

[34], this time it's used in a more political sense.

[35] this talks about the trem as an internal concept.

[36] in C eromonail magic.

[37]

As I said at the very start, this is not just a concept that only encompass shamanism or ley lines. We should not be discussing if this article should be deleted until we have discussed what it should be about.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got to the 2nd one and stopped, laughing. here. actually read it - it says "In this chapter I attempt to clarify the concept of national mysticism by focusing specifically on the place of "power" within it. This chapter is therefore devoted to nationalistic interpretations of power..." -- in other words, the writer is discussing the role played by power in national mysticism. This has nothing to do with some location where "energy" manifests.
The third link is to a "paranormal romance" novel called 'Mystic Witch".
others are as bad - eg the Anasazi book simply says "X became a place of power and influence, a place of wealth, monumental archictecture, and cultural importance." Plain old vanilla history writing.
even the ceremonial magic ref is about people taking positions of power in the RW. Not about mystical locations.
Yep, zero difference between the RW and paranormal romance fiction going on.
the mission of WP is to summarize accepted knowledge. Accepted knowledge is not found in fiction or on TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer (diff). Summarizing sources means actually dealing with what they say not just finding the phrase where ever it is used.
Like most New Agey garbage, clearly the word salad is what matters to proponents, (eg see the Chopra wisdom generator). Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is to summarize verifiable knowledge.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read the policy here: WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We summarize accepted knowledge by finding reliable sources and summarizing what they say. Don't confuse mission with strategy and tactics. And please stop wasting everyone's with inappropriate, OFFTOPIC,, terrible refs. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content." WP:NOTPAPER Just because you don't like it, don't agree with it, or think it's "New Age hooey" or "New Agey garbage" doesn't mean that it's not a notable concept. Meanwhile, again, please review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Sources can be debunked without personal attacks, and a useful way to do so would include showing what you do consider a valid source regarding "new age" topics and explaining the difference. While doing so isn't WP:COMPULSORY, it will go a long ways towards making the rest of your commentary seem less personally hostile and generally unreasonable. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the refs above are reasonable there is nothing I can do about that. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't even look at the refs, confident that they would be immediately "debunked" regardless of the effort that had been put into them. Your approach to the subject matter, willingness to dismiss respectably published books out of hand[38], and consistent tone trumped any concern I might have for whether a person looking for material was wasting your time or not. What did you say above? My concern is "trying to minimize your disruption." Darker Dreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with many of these sources is that they are not using "place of power" in the sense of this article but rather, as I have said repeatedly, as a coincidental phrase often with "place" not meaning a physical location at all but a figurative use of the word.@Slatersteven: Are you actually reading the purported sources you give before you link them? I feel like my time is being wasted here. Seriously? —DIY Editor (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Darker Dreams: It may be that the title of the article is part of why it seems objectionable. It's hard to separate the reasons the topic is questionable from the reasons the title are. I'll grant that it's conceivable that an article on the topic with a less stilted/contrived title and better content could pass Wikipedia standards as far as I understand them - if the material is there to draw on in reliable sources which is the crux of the matter. —DIY Editor (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I felt the title of the article was the most "plain english" and least stilted way to approach the subject, buttressed by it having been a previous article and finding some uses of that term in Wikipedia. As I said, I'm starting to see where it could fit naturally as part of the esoteric energy subsection; but there's also a popular culture slant that is a piece of how this article was being built that doesn't fit with the overall Energy_(esoteric) article. Darker Dreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case then maybe you are right that the topic merits an article under this title. The relevant subsection in Energy (esotericism) (which also seems like an unusual title to me) could be changed from "Locations" to "Places". Why not Place (esotericism) for this article? I don't know about wikipedia naming conventions or whether that parenthetical form is desirable, but it does, in simple terms, make clear the term being used and in what field. —DIY Editor (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't eliminate the problem of the quality of the content which is part of my reason for wanting to see it deleted. And potential WP:SYNTH since the topic has to be drawn from sources that will refer to allegedly the same ideas by different terms. —DIY Editor (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


As I say (for example) uses the term in a political sense I think it is clear I must have read it. As I have (repeatedly) said, this is the issue here. The term has multiple usage, only some of which are "hokum". Also if it quacks ans swims in water (ect)... We do not need to have the exact phrase (unless the page is about the exact phrase, in which case we have to give all definitions). So we should not be talking about AFD, but rather what the pages is about.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are trying to do some kind of Oxford Dictionary thing and track all uses of the term? That is not what Wikipedia articles do. WP:NOTDICTIONARY Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So we do not have any pages on terms that have wide usage in different areas?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would add, it is you who is saying we can only use "the exact term" and that this page is about "the exact term", you are the one using the "dictionary" argument.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what i have been saying. What i have been saying is that the subject matter of this ...article... is already in discussed in other articles. The only justification for this article existing would be if "place of power" is some kind of technical term distinct from the various kinds of sacred spaces we already have articles on (like Shrine, sacred natural site, or the like). No one has shown that - in fact the edits and refs have just shown that this phrase is loosely used in various places, meaning various things. Nothing has shown that "place of power" is a specific kind of "charged" place. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: I am having trouble following you. You claim that because sometimes people coincidentally group the words "place" "of" and "power" together that merits an article? And what exactly would the topic of that article be? It's not an idiomatic expression or common phrase, and I've seen little or nothing to indicate that it is notable term in any field. I think a link that you meant to include didn't make it through. Quotes would make it easier to try to understand what in particular you think justifies the content or the title. —DIY Editor (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NO, I am pointing out that if this article is about "just the phrase" that is what it should be, about the phrase (and as has been pointed out WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The problem is here is that as long as we are hung up on "it must include that phrase" we are not going to go anywhere. The subject is the idea of (what A C Clarke describes as "energy Transmitters"). Natural or man made places of mystical energy. If however it is (as some have tried to claim) about "just the phrase" then it is about the phrase, and not anyone subject.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the article should not be about the phrase "place of power" in all ways it might have been used, that's a given. It's not opponents to the article who have provided references constituted of figurative use of the word "place" like, for example, "In this chapter, I attempt to clarify the concept of national mysticism by focusing specifically on the place of 'power' within it." Do you see how that reference, despite including the phrase "place of power", is not relevant to the article? If we can now agree that finding examples of "place of power" used in literature is not on its own justification for the article I think we are getting somewhere. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that rather than continue to argue over deficiencies in the sources that have been offered so far (which is tempting), I would like to repeat that it is possible the concept of a place or location with esoteric "energies" is a legitimate topic for an article. The main concerns are coming up with reliable sources, and not violating WP:SYNTH by combining ideas from two sources, say one about a "nexus" with one about a "node" or "place of power", to make new statements not contained in one or the other. And I do find something peculiar about Place of power as an article title, but that alone wouldn't be reason to call for deletion of the article - except perhaps when coupled with the scarcity of quality source material for the concept. I would expect to find more and better sources than we have seen in this AFD and tend to believe they're there. —DIY Editor (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would ask you to tell users who refuse to accept any source that is clearly talking about "sites of mystical energy" (the same topic) just because it does not use the phrase "place of power". So for a start we actually need to decide what this article is about. If it is about sites that contain "mystical" energy then is it synthesis to say that one sauce calling it a "node of mystical power" and another as a "nexus of earth energy" Synthesis, as they are both talking about a place that has inherent power?Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
as here (for example [39], how is this not talking about sites that have power?Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious these discussions are going no where else other than in circles, and policy seems irrelevant no matter what position editors take. At this point, the best way progress can be made is let the dispute die, and wait for the AfD to be closed. The only thing that really concerns me is the relisting comment by Admin Go Phightins! per possibly WP:INVOLVED. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JudeccaXIII: I'm not sure I understand what makes you think I'm involved. That relist was my first interaction ever with this article or this discussion, and I have no other familiarity with the topic. My comment above was merely an attempt to explain my decision to relist when questioned. I will leave it to another admin to close this discussion for good. Go Phightins! 03:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think, on the question of merging this material with Energy (esotericism), one problem is that it assumes that all these sources actually relate to "energy" and not some other concept, whatever it might be. Is a place considered special ("sacred") only because of "energy"? The issue of possible WP:SYNTH is already present in the Locations section of Energy (esotericism). Without some reliable secondary source on the topic of how different authors in the "esoteric" fields refer to the same or similar concepts, I think combining them is WP:OR (the same problem as is present in this article). —DIY Editor (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above, MrOllie has brought up the article "Earth mysteries" which I don't believe has been mentioned yet in this AFD. That does seem to be a better fit for the topic of Place of power (although I don't know why "mysteries" is plural). Certainly the duplication of topic is more support for deleting this article. I am not opposed to merging anything salvageable and appropriate into Earth mysteries. —DIY Editor (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Place_of_power&oldid=1144354216"