Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council of Magickal Arts

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. --Core desat 05:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Magickal Arts

non-notable spam for organization of very little interest outside its community Nardman1 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non-notable--SUIT⁴² 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Seems to be notable only within community. Not notabile media attention that I could find and article doesn't assert any nobitibility as per WP:ORG requirements.--Dacium 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (I am the article's author) I can (and will) argue that CMA has, within the worldwide Neopagan community, considerable notability. However, seeing as how I just this afternoon started this page, as a stub, it is kind of absurd to instantly slap an AfD tag on it. Nardiman originally tagged this page as db-spam, apparently without actually reading it, then changed his mind after I spoke up, and now he proposes it for deletion. Wouldn't it have been easier to just admit his error, remove the db-spam tag, and give me some time to develop the article? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been preferrable if he has done that. However, it would have been a good idea for you to obtain reliable sources before you created the article in the first place. That way we could have seen that it met the notability criteria and would not have to have this discussion. JChap2007 18:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Conditional Keep Without any further information, WP:FAITH. Nkras 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The AfD show have waited until a reasonable amount of time passed. The article has been substantially edited and appears to contain legitimate information with sources. Nkras 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for a while ➥the Epopt 04:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. Revisit in 3-6 months. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now, review article in a few months time. Terence Ong 12:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta say weak keep here. I'll ask some of the neopagans around work as to the notability of this organization - though that would point to whether it's notable in Seattle. --Dennisthe2 16:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Precedent has already been set by inclusion of similar festivals. Needs some major work, especially third-party references. - WeniWidiWiki 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to say that the idea that this article is considered a joke and un-notable is a real shame. CMA is a registered 501 (c) 3 organization with almost 1000 members. ----User:rain0826 Web Mistress for Council of the Magickal Arts, Inc. http://www.magickal-arts.org
- I do feel it prudent at this time to refer you to WP:ILIKEIT. It's not so much the number of members of the organization that make it notable, it's the purpose of the organization. I still need to ask around, but my vote above otherwise stands at weak keep. --Dennisthe2 18:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it could use some more references if such exist, per WeniWidiWiki. Rain0826, while your enthusiasm is understandable, even commendable, you pretty much disqualify yourself for Conflict Of Interest.
--*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak Keep - per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:LOCAL. Please produce sources involving newspaper coverage, or some sort of coverage from independant, reliable sources. There's nothing there that can be verified. Saying it's a registered 501 c means absolutely nothing, that has not been verified and quite frankly doesn't mean a hill of beans since it's not something WP uses for inclusion. This is not even a matter of notability, but of verifiability. Thank you for sourcing. Goodbye.--Elar a girl^Talk|Count 02:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly make a statement like "Saying it's a registered 501 c means absolutely nothing, that has not been verified..."? Do you happen to know what 501(c)(3) means? It means they are a tax-exempt religious organization and recognized as such by the IRS. It means donations to the org are tax-deductible, for one thing. Do you think that is something you can just claim on your website without it being a fact? What would convince you? I am PRETTY sure the IRS does NOT post a list of all 501(c)(3)'s anywhere. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 12:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, deletionists are primarily out to destroy other's work rather than contribute to wikipedia, so it's best to just ignore them. They usually go after small grass-roots groups and particularly like to prey on new editors. If they are going to start removing all religious and nonprofit groups on the basis of 501(c)(3) non-profit status for notability, there are several thousand articles in front of this one. - WeniWidiWiki 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the term deletionist doesn't necessarily refer to somebody who follows the link you refer to. --Dennisthe2 22:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone had bothered to actually READ what I wrote, I did not say it wasn't notable, and I said notability wasn't even the issues. I said that no one had any verifiable sources. The fact that it's a 501 does not make it automatically immune to needing to follow WP:RS or WP:V. Does this organization have any coverage that can VERIFY it's existance? If this organization is supposedly so important as the article claims, shouldn't there be some independent coverage? As for WeniWidiWiki's attack, I find it funny I have more mainspace contributions than he does even though he's been here longer. Please read WP:CIVIL for how to edit, and WP:DGAF for what I think of your slanted opinion. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough everyone. FWIW, the IRS does indeed maintain a list of qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. See [1]. JChap2007 18:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the TXT file that the IRS provides at that link, I find that this organization is listed there. However, as I explain below, this is not sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. JChap2007 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaragirl, take a good look at this quote from your own project, then look at the nom above and my response (the first listed keep) and ask yourself wtf is really going on around here...

from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion

Execution of Stubs

Wikipedia is not a gallows. Some people like building stubs, then slowly expanding the article as they go along , sourcing and refining. Yet increasingly, speedy deletion is killing off stubs, in some cases in under 50 minutes from time of creation.

I am only asking you to honor the words on your project page and reverse your vote... at least for now. Bear in mind that it was 32 minutes from stub creation to nom for speedy delete, and an hour after that Nardiman created this AfD. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 04:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion, yes. I agree, the speedy that the article had was out of line, and you did right with the hangon. The Deletion process *is* working correctly.

I'll break it down for you. IF your article is both notable (which it may or may not be) and verifiable (which means you would have added sources) then deletion nominations are a joke. Take Starwood Festival. Horribly written spam sounding article. But it has plenty of sources, from places that have nothing to do with the festival directly. Books, newspapers, mainstream blogs, etc. You say that the Council of Magical arts is important , and the article claims that it's one of the larger pagan thingies (festivals, what have you) in the world. WHY CAN'T YOU PRODUCE A SINGLE INDEPENDANT SOURCE? You haven't got anything that even demonstrates a shred of notability. If someone has found something in a Google search, please add it to the article, because my search string google search string found 102 ghits. NOT notable. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 10:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go. Adler, Margot, Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today, Beacon Press, ISBN 0-8070-3253-0, revised edition, 1986, p. 536. lists the CMA Beltaine and Samhain festivals. The contact info is long out of date, though.

It was published 20 years ago, so of course the contact info is out of date. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 18:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More refs pouring in:

Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft by Raven Grimassi [2]
If You Want to Be a Witch: A Practical Introduction to the Craft by Edain McCoy [3]
The Sabbats: A Witch's Approach to Living the Old Ways by Edain McCoy [4]
Advanced Witchcraft: Go Deeper, Reach Further, Fly Higher by Edain McCoy [5]

--Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one more... Dancing the Fire: A Guide to Neo-Pagan Festivals and Gatherings by Marian Singer --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing... JChap says that published books that mention CMA in lists of festivals is not significant, but you have to realize that CMA has been holding these festivals twice a year for 27 years! Yes, CMA does not sponsor a chair at a university, or fund research into why hamsters have no hair on their tongues but what they do is what they do... 2 festivals a year and 4 journals. Longevity, particularly in ANYTHING alternative, is notable. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The listings you provided are all merely directory listings, not substantive discussions, and WP:N requires that the organization have been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources, not merely mentioned in them. And no, longevity does not make something notable under that guideline; rather, having sources does. JChap2007 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Elaragirl's comment way below. The Grimassi book has more than just a listing for CMA. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete • No real verifiable sources, but I'm not satisfied there aren't any, after some prodding in Google. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources (see WP:N and WP:ORG). No hits in Google News, the hits in Google News Archive do not have as their subject this organization, but merely quote officials of the organization on other topics. The hits in Google Books are merely directory listings (trivial mentions). I find the keep rationales above unconvincing for various reasons:
1. We don't keep articles just because they might (in 3-6 months time) contain sufficient sourcing to meet the notability criteria.
2. Merely being verifiable or having 501(c)(3) status are insufficient to meet the notability criteria.
3. That similar organizations/festivals have articles here is a non starter per WP:INN and the principle that notability is not a blanket. This article needs to assert that the organization itself is notable, not that similar organizations are notable. JChap2007 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- Googled it, and it seems notable enough...--SUIT⁴² 05:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try it again using the actual phrase "Council of Magickal Arts". 102 ghits. On another note, looking up this stuff has led me to the Fellowship of Isis, which is not sourced but is plainly notable, I'll source that to show what needs to be done to this article. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 10:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on this, since you and others have said before the ghits are not a measure of notability (yet everyone keeps mentioning ghits anyway), if I use "council of magickal arts" I get 266 ghits. For "council of the magickal arts" I get 259 ghits (we have had this problem for years as many add "the" although it is not correct). For council +magickal +arts Google stops counting at 32,000 ghits. I found legit references as far as the 45th page of hits where I stopped. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 16:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain which of these "legit references" constitute reliable sources? And you're right, the Google test is pretty worthless. JChap2007 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did not say they were WP:RS, just said they were legit refs. By legit I meant that they were actually referring to CMA and not a false hit.

So are there any independent, nontrivial reliable sources for this subject? The sources in the article are a mention in a style guide and a directory listing in the CNM report (trivial), its own website and journal (not independent), and a personal website (not reliable). JChap2007 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so ya know, The Witches Voice is not a personal website. It has been THE number one online Pagan networking and educational site for many years. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 18:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's a place where witches go and write posts about organizations they are involved with or events they attend. That's not a reliable source, like a newspaper or magazine. A number of the keep !voters seem to be willing to give you more time to develop the article, but if there really are no sources out there that would enable this to meet the notability guidelines you are probably just wasting your time and ours... JChap2007 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, notable witches such as Kerr Cuhulain, author of 181 articles and essays on witchvox, 4 books and head of The Officers of Avalon. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 20:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the posts are reliable (and Cuhulain did not write any of the posts cited in the article). The posts contain the personal experiences of attendees of the festivals and are not an attempt at doing any sort of reporting (and I don't think they were intended as such). There is nothing wrong with that, of course. But such postings are not considered reliable sources. JChap2007 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset indenting A newspaper or magazine publishes information of interest to their readers, and which they believe will sell papers. A website of the longevity and quality of The Witches Voice publishes articles, essays and news items of interest to their readership, which they believe will generate traffic and fulfill their stated mission. Sure, there are portions of the site that are user-generated and of less than stellar notability, but the editorial portions of the site are considered of high notability among the community in question, namely Neopagans. What I responed to, regarding Kerr Cuhulain, was your disparaging tone when you referred to witchvox as a place where witches go and write posts about organizations they are involved with or events they attend. I find it really amazing that a project that seeks to use the Internet as a tool to create this vast encyclopedic reference is so inherently dogmatic in its distrust of the medium it lives in. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one's being dogmatic or disparaging. slate.com is frequently cited here (to take one of many examples of online publications that are considered reliable sources). The reason that the three posts cited in the Council of Magickal Arts article we are discussing do not qualify as reliable sources is that they were obviously written to convey a personal experience, rather than as part of a concious attempt to collect and report objectively on information, such as would be undertaken by a journalist, academic or professional author. There's nothing wrong with writing about one's personal experience, of course. Such writing does not fall within the definition of reliable source, however. JChap2007 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - and revisit in a month if notability has not been established in that time. I might go for delete if the deletion request were not filed so quickly. I generally think an article should be given at least the five days permitted for inclusion in the Did you know section before considering deletion. Badbilltucker 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BITE. Mango juice^talk 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Disgustingly, although you can't tell it from the given google excerpt, the Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft has a small section. There are enough possible sources that I'm not willing to see it deleted at this time, but it still reads very .. ahem .. spammy. Please clean it up further. I have changed my vote accordingly. (See? Add source, change vote.Works.) --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable enough, and give the author time to improve the article. --Bill.matthews 19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reading some of the commentary here, we do have an interesting point - we really shouldn't be so pedantic about prompt deletion of brand new articles for "stub" purposes. Should this be brought up in BITE or AGF? --Dennisthe2 20:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would only apply to BITE when it is a new editor, but would ALWAYS apply to AGF. That is what really got me so annoyed at first, was the assumption of the nom that the article would NOT be expanded and completed. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 05:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many new articles that , on first glance, "look okay" are spam? How many are created and never touched again? Thousands. Literally thousands. If I come back to the average article in a month's time, it's still going to be crap. Example that you can relate to: Free Spirit Gathering. Not a source in sight, and it's been here since April. It is NOT biting or violating AGF to ask that you follow the policies. Was it speedy tagged too quick, maybe. But your article reads like vanity spam. I'm sorry, but it does, and that's what I suspect got such a rapid response. I'm not going to nom Free Spirit Gathering for deletion, but there are plenty of articles like that "under the radar", and saying "Well, you can't kill spammy looking unsourced articles" isn't right. When I make a new article, even a stub, I always include at least two sources. And if I can't THEN I DON'T MAKE THE ARTICLE. Try it. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 05:32, 27 January 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.