Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natib Qadish (2nd nomination)

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. If information needs to be salvaged for a merge, let me know and I can userify it. No prejudice against recreation of a redirect to Semitic Neopaganism. The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natib Qadish

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Natib Qadish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entry fails WP:N. There are no reliable sources on this minor neopagan religion and hence notability cannot be established. I tried redirecting the page to Semitic Neopaganism, but one the page's primary authors apparently doesn't agree. Rather than edit war over the redirect I'm nominating for deletion. Griswaldo (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Griswaldo (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article's length and number of references are deceptive - most of the text and all of the legit citations relate to the history of the Canaanite religion. I don't believe general notability guidelines are met. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 09:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - that reference list is appalling, looks like WP:OR. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is very little on NQ itself on the web, barring its own website (canaanitepath.com/). The article is deceptive with a lot of genuine history and books on older religions. So, fails Notability and Verifiability, unless anyone knows specific reliable independent sources? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I noticed this article a few days ago, before the redirect, and could find no reliable sources discussing it and noted that the article was basically OR trying to link ancient Canaanite religion & others to this minor neopagan religion. There's a portal and a category also up for deletion. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: Pure self-promoting OR of a clearly non-notable religious "movement". The sources provided are misused in that they refer to an ancient religious concept, and not to the subject of the present article, which is a modern recreation. Nothing on Google except the movements own website. Zero independent coverage of any kind. In fact, zero evidence of any kind whatsoever that the movement has any following except for the creator of the website. Clearly fails notability requirements, and there is no hope that adequate sourcing will ever be found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not finding any reliable sources to qualify topic notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Dawson will soon publish her third book on the ancient Canaanite religion and Natib Qadish (it's modern reincarnation). Natib Qadish has been featured in numerous Neopagan Websites and publications. But still you claim that there's no reliable sources to be found. Apparently, this religion needs to be kosher approved by a rabbi, or blessed by the pope himself. What kind of "reliable sources" are you looking for?--Camocon (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These kind of reliable sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 19:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Camocon: All of these sources derive 100% of their information on the movement from Tess Dawson herself. There is zero investigative reporting, and absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that any of them conducts any fact checking. All of those sources combined could be used to source only that Tess Dawson wrote a book about the movement, and possibly that she is a known figure in the occult community (even that would be pushing it). They cannot even be used to source Dawson's statement that the movement has any other members besides her (and possibly her cat). Dawson's statement that there are other members is unreliable to the extreme, and even if we take her at her word, there is no indication that the movement has enough members to establish notability in accordance with WP:NOTE. The only source that contains any appreciable amount of material not derived solely from Dawson her self is the first one. And even that source clearly states that all she had heard about the movement were "vague rumors" and that she had never met a member of the movement before. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the "group's" notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's 276 members in the Natib Qadish yahoo group, and I'm one of them. Let me guess... that's not enough for you and your cronies. It's ok to bully a small religion that doesn't have a large following, because you can get away with it. Whose going to take sides with "baal worshippers" that are generally not accepted by mainstream pagans? Lets just edit them out like the Levites did Asherah (Athirat), and keep the Abrahamic faiths in good standing. We don't want anyone to discover the biggest plagiary in recorded history. --Camocon (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is pretty convincing evidence that there should be no article on this religion, that's a very tiny Yahoo group and coupled with the fact that Camocon calls it a 'small religion', I doubt it merits a mention anywhere on Wikipedia. Camocon, what do you mean by 'biggest plagiary'? Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: You're trying to minimize Natib Qadish by calling it 'very tiny', like a slave owner calling a black man a boy. I said it was a small religion, meaning- in contrast to the Abrahamic faiths, and mainstream Neopagan groups. There's a lot of religious sects in the world with less than 300 members, so the size of the religion is not the issue here. As for the 'biggest plagiary', I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. This is not a place for religious debate, so I'm not going to respond to that here. --Camocon (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC) @Dominus Vobisdu: The "vague rumors" you alluded to was actually said by Galina Krasskova in her opening dialog, before the Tess Dawson interview. Galina Krasskova said- "A few years ago, I began hearing vague references to a Reconstructionist Paganism that focused on the Canaanite and Phoenician Deities". Apparently, you didn't read past the first sentence. You said- "Dawson's statement that the movement has any other members besides her (and possibly her cat)". That misquote of yours about Tess Dawson is highly misleading, because she never said anything about her (and her cat) being the only followers of Natib Qadish. You are twisting the truth to fit your own agenda. --Camocon (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and insert any material with good references into the Semitic Neopaganism article. I do think the Tess Dawson book would be an appropriate reference there, but not really sufficient to support a whole independent article until more independent sources also exist. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:20, 16 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natib_Qadish_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136740887"