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The result was AfD proposal withdrawn. Article converted to redirect to Postmodern religion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern Wicca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Almost identical text to that found at Postmodern Neopaganism which is arguably a better home for this material Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be merged directly without coming here, but the text does not appear identical--was this an attempt at a split? DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The author responsible for the whole text of this article has just reduced it to a nine-word stub - presumably to render it non-identical to the article at Postmodern Neopaganism. I guess the article we are discussing could now be speedied as having little or no content, but I will not paste a speedy template myself. The topic of the viability of this article has been discussed at great length on the talk page and also on the Wicca talk page. All the contributing editors apart from the one responsible for starting this page were of the opinion that the topic was WP:OR and non-notable. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main editor contributing to this article is making heroic efforts to flesh it out so my comment on the "stubby" nature of this article no longer applies. However I do believe this material is largely WP:OR and is essentially an essay which is one thing Wikipedia is not. I have proposed that this page (which largely discusses Neopaganism, not Wicca), should be turned into a redirect to Postmodern Neopaganism. I have made this suggestion to the principal editor, who continues to beaver away regardless. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor concerned is now gutting her own article at Postmodern Neopaganism (see edit summaries at page's history. I cannot think of a viable reason to do this, unless it somehow relates to the discussion here at AfD. This getting out of hand and I am taking a back seat from editing these articles or this AfD further for a while. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

1. POSTMODERN WICCA has been identified as GOOD ARTICLE BY BOTS

I have created an entirely new category for POSTMODERNISM (VITAL TOPIC) and article POSTMODERN RELIGIONN - identified as a Good Article by Bots

2. The flow for my content is

POSTMODERNISM

POSTMODERN RELIGION

POSTMODERN NEOPAGANISM - Sub-articles to include POSTMODERN WICCA, POSTMODERN DRUIDISM, Semitic Neopaganism etc etc

POSTMODERN CHRISTIANITY

POSTMODERN BUDDHISM

POSTMODERN HINDUISM

ETC ETC

3. I am attempting to create a series of connected articles, however, Repeated suggests are that the articles should be merged into WICCA - or deleted, but my articles connect to POSTMODERN THEORY so they should not be merged or redirected. I keep repeating that this content connects to POSTMODERNISM, however, the WICCA community is very upset and continues to delete, revert etc etc etc etc

4. Could perhaps someone from Postmodernism shed some light??

5. I have provided over 50 references and worked very hard researching to contribute good content to Wiki on a topic that has not been covered - postmodern religion. All religions can be interpreted from a postmodern perspective so I don't really see why it is such a problem if I write about this??

6. I am a little confused about the level of resistance here considering the content is new and the sources are credible. Some articles are short but I am working hard and if I could I have a little bit of space to develop the new content. I am better at developing new content and research or coming up with angles on topics that may not have been covered on wiki, yet users are searching for or interested in - my editing skills are sadly lacking, so this is an area that I would love to focus on in Wikipedia.

7. The average user may tend to run a search for postmodern wicca etc. rather than postmodern neogpaganism - it is a more refined and specific search and the term wicca gets more hits than neopaganism so level of user interest is evident. As the majority of Neopagans are Wiccan/Witch (Google searches are 400,000 per month for Wicca) it makes sense to have a separate page. The article has only been around for a week and there are lots of references, it seems that it would be better to keep and add to the content, rather than delete the content.

8. BE OBJECTIVE - The Postmodernism - Postmodern religion - Postmodern Christianity - Postmodern Buddhism - Postmodern Neopaganism - Postmodern Wicca - Postmodern Hinduism - Links to Religion and Philosophy as major portals - also we can link to Christianity, Buddhism, Neopaganism, Hinduism etc don't waste a good opportunity.

--Kary247 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for caps. I have poor vision, working hard and forget to change to lower case, glasses etc. I have fixed up and shortened - I will get my glasses next time--Kary247 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, we don't title articles based on keywords or Google indexing. We base them on the best title for the subject, what it is called in the literature. We don't make a bunch of small articles if the material would be better organized into a more general article. We don't decide whether an article should be kept based on possible hits, only on notability and verifiability. Also, SHOUTING in BOLD doesn't help your arguments but rather only makes them look weak. Please don't shout, it's hard to read and annoys other editors. Yworo (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - (a) It's an invalid content fork of Postmodern Neopaganism and (b) Having looked at the sources I'm unconvinced that "postmodern wicca" has a meaning distinct from "wicca that is postmodern". Random accretions of adjectives and nouns are not inherently encyclopaedic, no matter how many Google hits you get for their usage. (Arguably postmodern wicca is the only form of wicca that ever existed, but that's really neither here nor there.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if the subject is at all notable, the Postmodern Neopaganism article is the correct place for it, with sections on any subcultures such as Wicca and Druidism. There will not be enough material specific to those topics to avoid the unnecessary repetition of material such as is already going on. These articles look virtually identical with minor changes in wording. I'm not convinced that this is anything more than an essay or original research topic. No need to proliferate articles until that is resolved at Postmodern Neopaganism and strong evidence is produce that there is enough material about pagan subcultures to justify additional articles. I am particularly concerned that all these articles start out with "Postmodern x can be defined", as an encyclopedia article should be about something that is defined. I'd like to see sources for the definitions, otherwise this looks like a personal synthesis. Yworo (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2010 (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.