Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (diabolic)

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 speedily deleted‎. A10 was applied. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 06:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft (diabolic)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is a virtual duplicate of the article Witchcraft, and should therefore be deleted. Treybien2, 21:57 21 July 2023 (talk) (UTC)

Oppose - This article was made from material copied from witchcraft, so it makes sense that there would be significant duplication in a page that's existed for less than 24 hours. Discussion in an ongoing move request for the Witchcraft page indicates that page is or should be a perfectly good WP:BROADCONCEPT and is not WP:UNBALANCED or biased. If that's true there should be space for these two articles to develop clear differences. Darker Dreams (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For a greater appreciation of the context of this article's creation, please read Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic bias. This is not an endorsement of either side of ongoing arguments. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 06:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: It's not a virtual duplicate; it is a duplicate, seemingly aimed at avoiding/circumventing actual discussion and community consensus on the home page, making it plain old disruptive editing and a candidate for WP:A10. Also this page was created without the proper AfD template, so it isn't currently an actually properly functioning AfD, just a page with an AfD title. Just a mess really. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it a plausible redirect to Witchcraft? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have contested the speedy delete. Despite that, I do hope that the AfD is repaired. I can only guess why you're making accusations that I'm "avoiding/circumventing actual discussion and community consensus on the home page" and "plain old disruptive editing." But, what I am doing is moving forward based on the direction it appears consensus is evolving. The discussion indicates an opinion that the existing page as an unbiased, broad concept - which would mean there's additional information to cover in a separate article. If there's not additional information and that page is unduly focused on this subject, this page should absolutely be deleted and the other moved to an appropriate name. Darker Dreams (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not have been sensible to discuss the scope prior to creating a duplicate page? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The AfD template was fixed at 13:29 22 July by NinjaRobotPirate here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apply A10.—Alalch E. 19:58, 22 July 2023 (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.