Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenwood Tradition Celtic Shamanic 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwood Tradition Celtic Shamanic Wicca

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

Deprodded by article creator, my concerns remains that there are no independent reliable sources that I can find to indicate it meets our notability guidelines. In deprodding, the category creator has pointed to a non-WP:RS (in my opinion) link attesting to the fact that Meri Fowler founded it, which is not what's at issue here. I believe the WP:SPA (and possible WP:COI) editor simply doesn't understand our notability requirements. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources. --Rob (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 February 2011 Yes Shawn in Montreal is correct. I don't know understand the notability requirements and would appreciate some help from him if he would be interested to work on it with me. Greenwoodmeri (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Articles need to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines generally referred to as notability. This usually involves demonstrating that there is significant coverage about the subject from independent reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I could find the reliable sources I would have added them myself, per WP:PRESERVE. I just don't see it, unfortunately. I believe you're based in Montreal, like me. Has the Gazette ever done a story? Or local CBC Radio? Has an independently published book on the history of Wicca -- one not associated with your movement -- written about your group? These are the sort of references we would need. It might just be a case of WP:TOOSOON, meaning it's too soon for a wiki article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thank you Shawn very much for your valuable input. I appreciate it very much. The Gazette has written about our community center, I have been a guest speaker for Women's Day at Vanier College, and I was interviewed on the Irish radio station one year for Samhain. But maybe it is too soon for a Wiki article. Our Tradition has more covens than any other Tradition in Quebec(most traditions have one or two), we have 11 and a waiting list for people to train with us. It's not just the number of people that makes me think this is noteworthy for the Wiccan community however, but the fact that although Wicca is the fastest growing spiritual movement in the world it is so hidden. Bringing us out of the broom closet, so to speak, creates awareness and tolerance. To the many denominations (Traditions) of Protestants a new Protestant church would be newsworthy, so a new Wiccan Tradition that is as established and growing as Greenwood is news to us and the world Wiccan community. Guess we need some more press! Maybe I should speak out against the Catholic Churches new publication: How to convert Wiccans. Apparently Witch hunts are not a thing of the past! That might get us an independent reference or two.:) Greenwoodmeri (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2011 (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.