Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagan House
- 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 — Caknuck 19:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article clearly does not meet the notability guildelines for groups and organizations: it is local to Omaha, NE and I have not been able to find any references to it in secondary sources. The only references on the internet are the group's own website and event ads posted by the group on various pagan websites. Probably unverifiable. Article was previously tagged for notability/lack of sources, but the tags were removed by the article creator.
I am bringing this to AfD rather than prodding because of a potential conflict of interest; I am personally acquainted with the founder of the group, though I have no quarrel with her. I'm fairly certain that the article creator, Musashi39, is either Leslie McQuade or someone else closely associated with the group, and I am notifying them of this deletion discussion. AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 12:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless originators or other editors can find decent secondary sources. I'm sure this is a bona fide organisation, but the point is not whether or not it exists but rather whether it meets the criteria for notability for organisations. The lack of on-line sources suggests that it does not, but people who know it better may be able to cite print sources which I have not ben able to find. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, weakly, per. nom., unless reliable secondary sources are found, and a certificate of good standing from a secretary of state is not good enough, all it does is show that an organisation by that name has been registered with a state government. No opinion as to conflict of interest issues at this time; if notability can be shown, that should be enough, since the actual text seems neutral enough to pass. -Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I didn't mean to suggest conflict of interest on the part of the article's creator; I agree that the text is neutral. I just thought that, given my personal involvement (peripheral as it may be), it would be appropriate to ask for community input. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 04:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just a church or church equivalent. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is produced before the conclusion of this AfD discussion. --Stormie (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without secondary sources or citations, it cannot be verified that this is not an advertisement for this group's activities. Among items that need to be substantiated are:
- Pagan House attempts to foster an understanding between different Pagan beliefs and main stream religious institutions.- No efforts toward this end are described. The only activity mentioned is a recurring ritual for Pagans.
- Pagan House attempts to change the world for the better.- This statement is nebulous, most organizations feel they are making the world better. It seems a bit self-serving without clear examples of how this relates to this group's specific goals.
- The White Ritual is held in conjunction with the Unitarian Universalists.- This needs to be clarified in order to not be misleading. Is Pagan House affiliated with any Unitarian Universalist organization? Is the ritual described formally co-sponsored by a UU organization? Is it even held at a UU church or a location procured at least in part by a UU body?.
- The only sources provided are the State of NE certificate and a link to its website. Unless the neutrality of this article can be confirmed, it can be concluded that this article is meant to drive web traffic to the Pagan House website, rather than serve as a general interest article.
--RadicalHeretic (talk) 04:31, 27 November 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.