Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gnostic Pagan Tradition

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 of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnostic Pagan Tradition[edit]

Appears to be original research/advertising/vanity/linkspamming for the poorly designed and completely unreferenced website http://www.gnostics.com, which has an Alexa ranking of 1,379,820. Pretty much all other references to the "Gnostic Pagan Tradition" on the web appear to be links to this page. Article created by Jason Farrow, whose only other Contributions to Wikipedia are links to gnostics.com added to various unrelated articles (like Wicca). It should be noted that Jason Farrow is also the webmaster of gnostics.com ([1] - see page footer). The "pagan school" this website advertises is a $120 online course. AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Adela's very detailed research - easy no brainer imho. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Metacontent in an encyclopedia article! Harumph! Ruby 03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jkelly 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phædriel's comments. Good work, AdelaMae. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 06:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: original research or advertising, take your pick. Smerdis of Tlön 06:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:per nom. The sooner the better.--◀Puck^talk▶ 08:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"readers are encouraged to submit original material for publication" I sumbit Delete for publication. Liamdaly620 08:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Vidkun 01:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I hate to go so much against public opinion, however, I tend to do a lot of studying of religious/occult subjects, and pagan gnosticism actually goes far beyond just this one site. There has been a lot of study in this area with quite a few books published that touch on the subject. I'm very familiar with a lot of the concepts that are on this site and I can personally attest that this site is NOT merely original research. Although searches on the phrase "The Gnostic Pagan Tradition" may all point to this website, you will find that you will get hits on phrases such as "Pagan Gnosticism" and "Gnostic Paganism" that do not just point to this site. I believe that this topic should be retained and just re-worked to be less of an out-right advertisement. Nortonew 01:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to do an article on Pagan Gnosticism or Gnostic Paganism? "The Gnostic Pagan Tradition" certainly seems to refer to this particular group and would imply that there is only one such tradition. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, it might be better to delete this article and start over with a new article that uses a more generic name for the subject.Nortonew 15:30, 24 January 2006 (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.