Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagaian Cosmology

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. Bucketsofg 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Pagaian Cosmology

PRODded. There was a complaint against the deletion placed on the article's Talk page, thus making it a contested PROD. This is a procedural nomination. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable new age neologism. low G hits, mostly for the book, which appears to be a small press or self published effortArtw 04:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Retain PaGaian Cosmology is practised by a number of groups in Australia. Other groups in the UK, US, Australia use the book and Cosmology therein for ritual practice of this ecospirtuality. The book is entirely based on Livingstone's PhD thesis. It has been reviewed in the following publications
  

EINGANA The Journal of the Victorian Association for Environmental Education, Vol 29 Number 1, April 2006. (Review by Ruth Rosenhek, environmental justice activist)
Women-Church: An Australian Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, issue 38, Autumn 2006, p. 42-43. (by Lynne Hume, Associate Professor in the School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics at the University of Queensland)
Journeys newsletter, Winter 2006 Volume 14, No. 1 (by Elizabeth Cain, Jungian Psychotherapist and Spiritual Counsellor) and Pagan journal The Crossroads, Issue 3, Litha 2005
Glenys and her work are well respected among members of the goddess spirituality network within Australia.User:Wordsarewonderful|(talk)--waw 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• AfD etiquette:If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else. Signed Jeepday 14:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am the author, Glenys Livingstone, and I am sorry if I have done something wrong in the procedure as I gather I have by the warning above, but by what was said here about "your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once," I understood that it was a ballot - and particularly so on this page. Please explain. I thought then that the discussion was really happening on talk pages elsewhere - which is where I have posted my comments thus far, and waiting dutifully to come to this page only once and "vote" as we were apparently being told to do. So can you please clarify what is correct? I thought it was encouraged to alert people who might care about the outcome of ths AFD to come here and support it, and also to edit the topic itself, as I have encouraged them to do. Like me most I know need encouragement to come to this auspicious site and edit or say anything ... in case it is wrong or feeling like they don't have "clout" and don't bother.Pagaian 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Glenys, perhaps I can clear up some of these issues for you. When most people hear the word "vote", what they think it means is "oh, each person comes by, casts a 'ballot' for one of the choices, and then an answer is calculated solely from the totals of the ballots." A deletion discussion is definitely not a vote in that sense, because the answer is not calculated solely from the totals of the ballots. The totals of the ballots will be a factor in the decision made by the admin who closes the discussion -- but other factors include how well those who support a particular fate for the article support their argument with reference to deletion policy, and how much reason we have to think that the opinion of someone who supports a particular fate for the article is an educated opinion based on a real understanding of Wikipedia's goals and its standards. I couldn't begin to count the deletion discussions, for example, where a horde of people showed up to assure us "X is good! X is great! X is wonderful!" which had absolutely no effect in their favor because it showed that they didn't understand the real crux of the issue was not "is X good?" but "is X already notable, or only expecting to become notable? is there enough reliable information from trustworthy sources to write about X or are we only getting a few opinions, all from parties with personal stakes in how X is presented?" That is why, if someone who we've never seen on Wikipedia before comes in and makes a good argument, not only valid but sound, about how the article on X fits Wikipedia's criteria and should be kept, it will have an effect on the outcome, whereas if someone who never showed interest in Wikipedia before this deletion discussion shows up and says nothing but "I think this article should be kept" it's not going to have much effect at all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Glenys Livingstone again. Should I direct people to where they may find my response so they can comment? or is that just for Wiki editors ? and Question again, when I click on my signature at the end of these posts, it takes me to a place that says there is no user page by the name pagaian. I don't understand how people can easily find my talk page then - which does actually exist here [1].Pagaian 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• To answer the first question, no, you should not and this may be the reason for the warning above, although I'm willing to assume you did not know you were doing anything wrong and that it is a simple mistake. Whether an article should be kept or note is generally based on certain longstanding policies and guidelines, and especially the notability guidelines. It does not really matter how much "clout" you have or how many people you can bring to a debate. It's the arguments that count. Editors can make multiple comments, but should only put forth one delete or keep. Also, if you have a conflict-of-interest in the subject matter (as you very definitely do here) it may annoy some editors if you are seen as actively campaigning for the article and cause them to view the article as vanispamicruftisement. (Now there's a neologism!) JChap2007 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You can create a userpage by clicking on your username, entering text in the box and hitting save. JChap2007 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I looked for references and everything I found was on the topic was tied directly to the author of the single book on the subject. Jeepday 05:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Retain I object to the deletion of the article on ‘PaGaian Cosmology’ because it meets Wiki’s three cardinal content policies. It has been written from a neutral point of view, representing its views fairly and without bias, it has been researched, reviewed and published by a substantial number of reliable secondary sources and does not contain any unpublished material. The word PaGaian is well defined within the article as a unique synthesis of two well known words ie ‘pagan’ and ‘Gaia’, which in my opinion rules out any need to define it as a ‘neologism’. The book is based on 30 years of research and development involving many participating groups and is an outcome of the author’s doctoral thesis. The book PaGaian Cosmology – Re-inventing Earth-based Goddess Religion published by iUniverse, Inc in 2005 'together with numerous independent reviews, is made freely available via a creative commons licence at [2] an open source website that is increasingly attracting notice with a total of 11404 hits and 4261visits within the past five months. Malpagaia 12:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • AfD etiquette: Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted. Special:Contributions/Malpagaia signed Jeepday 14:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per original reasoning: no evidence of notability; lacks outside, verifiable sources. --User:Fang Aili 15:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the term is "defined in the article" as a "unique synthesis" then it definitely would be considered a neologism for present purposes. However, if the book has been reviewed in multiple, independent, reliable sources (and I would like to see those sources given the obvious WP:COI problem here), then the book is notable and should have an article, even if the term should not. I think I will contact Dr. Livingstone on her talk page. JChap2007 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Wikispam. N0n1in34r 21:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Spamvertisement for an unimportant new age idea. --JWSchmidt 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Retain" A clear definition that gives voice to a growing spiritual practice that will be of increasing relevance and interest globally. ____Sandy kondos) Skondos (talk · contribs · logs) 04:07, January 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • The above comment was moved here from the edit summary: [3]. ~ trialsanderrors 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No-notable nonsensical and un-referenced. NBeale 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Retain . I would like to comment that those who vote for or against really should pay attention to the previous conversation. Most notably the two prior voters who voted against keeping the term. Their comments are uninformed, emotionally charged and should not be officially counted unless they can come up with proof of their accusations. As for my experieces, I was concerned when I noticed that this term was up for deletion (It is a term that I use to describe my spirituality) and decided to do my own independent research on line to see if Glenys Livingstone was a notable personality and if her work has actually been peer reviewed and referenced by other authors. I found significant evidence that Glenys and her PaGaian work is widely recognized in Australia and that she is a notable personality in that country in the Neo-Pagan community. Her work has been reviewed by several peer journals (see comment above). I would like to be able to post specific areas that Glenys and/or her work on PaGaianism is noted on line. I'm not sure where to do this. Please advise. .rosewelsh January 30, 2007 UPDATED: I've just verified that Glenys has been quoted in Matthew Fox's book The Coming of the Cosmic Christ on page 12. The quote was from her Master's thesis. She was also invited by Starhawk a notable pagan author from the US, to help her organize an event in the Sydney area. Furthermore, most of the information about Glenys can be found by Googling her exact name and spending about an hour researching the links provided. User:rosewelsh|rosewelsh]] 2:20pm MST 1/30/07

• Retain . First, about me. As you can see, I've been a member on wikipedia for a while (I don't remember how long - more than a few months, less than 2 years). I haven't posted much at all, but do read wikipedia and donate money to wikimedia. I check on the veracity of wiki articles partly because I'm a scientist myself. Pagaian Cosmology is a new, important, and notable term. It's not New Age - New Age relies heavily on pseudoscience and supernatural ideas like reincarnation, crystal power, astrology etc. Quite the opposite, Pagaian Cosmology explicity has a naturalistic worldview consistent with science. As a scientist myself, I've noticed a terrible dearth of spiritual approaches that are based on a verifiable, scientific worldview. I think approaches like this hold immense promise for the future, and as such are very notable. The New Age movements don't stay consistent with science, nor do the many rapidly growing Pagan movements. Calling Pagaian Cosmology "New Age" shows a lack of understanding of it's basic ideas. As far as my untrained eyes can tell, the article is neutral, well researched, traceable, and fits wiki criteria. Even if it didn't, it seems to me that the best response would be to fix any perceived problems instead of deleting it. While I don't use Pagaian Cosmology myself, it's clear to me that it is notable, important, timely, and enhances wikipedia as a resource on relevant terms in today's world. Equinox2 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you've hit the nail on the head when you mention your "untrained eyes". You say you've "been a member on wikipedia for a while" but [edits] made on a single day over twenty-five months ago is really not much at all -- and the fact that you talk about how "approaches like [Pagaian Cosmology] hold immense promise for the future" when that has absolutely no relevance to an AfD doesn't give us a lot of reason to think that you've been accumulating an accurate idea of what "wiki criteria" are. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Retain. To label Pagaian cosmology as unnotable new age is seriously to miss the point of this thoroughly well researched and documented approach to ecospirituality which is grounded in the ancient Earth based Pagan traditions and augmented with a thoughtful retelling of Goddess based metaphor and narrative. Does Wikipedia exist to promote knowledge and inquiry that complements and supplements that available in more orthodox reference works or is it intent on censoring, editing and deleting that which its editors and contributors do not immediately recognise or understand? The naturalistic, ecospirituality movement is a growing force in the world, an idea that has found its time, and, in my own personal view, is both noteworthy and notable for the way in which it has influenced culture, politics, business and society in the last twenty years or so and for the manner in which it continues to influence thinking people across the globe today.

212.139.227.74 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Blue Moon

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.