Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Templi Kalendae

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 keep. Mailer Diablo 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Templi Kalendae

I maintain that this page be kept as the group are Noteworthy, as they are one of the oldest continuous pagan groups in the UK. They started the first moots in the Second City of the UK, and as such people will want to research them and the page is of great value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxraider (talk • contribs)

• Apparently this article was proposed for deletion, which was challenged. Now an AfD page has been set up and transcluded onto the AfD log, yet nobody seems to have nominated the article for deletion on AfD. Speedy keep for lack of deletion nomination. --Metropolitan90 04:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 12:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep As above, there is no actual nomination to delete. Looking at the history, the article had been prodded by an anon and the prod was removed by the original contributor. The AFD notice was never listed on the article. (I have added it now.) But the nominator doesn't say that he actually wants it deleted. So I'm with Metropolitan90, speedy keep. BigDT 12:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge or Delete They're not that noteworthy. 21 results on google (214 but it ends at 21 as they're off the same sites) most of which result from pagan social networking sites, some profiles, and wikipedia itself. It might be included as part of a larger article if say there was one on Pagan groups in the UK. --Crossmr 17:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Keep the page as people looking for the history of neopaganism in the uk would find it of value. The group was aroung long before the net, so few google hits is not important, but does make their wiki listing very important. Tuxraider 18:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This article has been here for years, by a longstanding wikipedia contibutor. The article is well researched and has some substance to it. For instance, the explanation of the Ophidian current. Its an interesting read. TK might not be 'famous' in terms of a numbers game on google but they have a unique contribution and viewpoint that I haven't seen elsewhere, and Tony Steele is a published author and I believe creator of the Ordo Anno Mundi. They have followers on an international level. Don't be swayed by an anonymous person (who those of us pagans in Birmingham have the misfortune to be well aware of.)

TK are well known and respected by those who have been in paganism for any length of time. Please bear in mind the strength of the writing of this article. I think it has intrinsic value.Acropolis now 18:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep I also maintain that this page be kept, the Templi Kalendae are one of the oldest covens in Birmingham and are part of the citys modern pagan/witchcraft heritage.

This page will interest many as it did me when I read it. By Ravens wings

• Delete TK are not a well known group within the UK at all, and is basically comprised of 1 man and a few women who spend most of their time spamming Pagan forums and slandering the other groups in the Birmingham area (and most of the rest of the UK). TK is about 2 years old, so is not a well established group and is certainly not 'older than the internet'. I have been active in the UK Pagan Community for over 20 years and hadn't even heard of these people until last year, and that was via a forum comment by the group leader. They are of no intrinsic value whatsoever. WW

• Speedy Keep As the author of the article I shall add my vote here. TK is notable and quite famous in a number of different ways. The OAM for example (one of TK's magical training orders) - which utilises the seven-degree Ophidian structure derived from the late Bob Clay-Egerton - is believed by many to have formed the inspiration for J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series - specifically, the magical curriculum of Hogwarts. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8] - there are many other examples, including foreign-language ones that I have not listed here. For proof that the OAM long predated the publication of the first Harry Potter book in 1997, see p.57 of the July 1985 edition of Prediction Magazine, which not only mentions the OAM by name, but also Tony Steele, its chief instructor (and author of two books outlining the Ophidian training programme). It's true that TK is unpopular and perhaps misunderstood amongst some members of the UK Pagan community, as the previous post attests, but this is mainly because of slanders and lies originating from a specific individual within the Birmingham Pagan scene, who is presumably jealous of their longevity and standing (and who, incidentally, placed the original delete notice onto the article). Be that as it may, "unpopular" does not equal "obscure" - usually quite the reverse in fact - and it is not Wikipedia's job to take sides in such petty disputes. TharkunColl 13:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have to say that my disdain for TK has come directly from the arrogance with which Tony Steele and friends treat anyone who dares to question the fact that the tenets of TK are based on a poorly researched and incorrect premise. I am aware that there is bad feeling between the Pagans of Birmingham, but as I do not come from Birmingham and have never actually visited I can state that anything going on there has no bearing on my request for deletion. The fact that the few members of TK I have come across online have been rude, dismissive of other paths and have slandered and libelled people they haven't even met for pointing out the faults in their cult makes it easier for me to state that this is a part of paganism that shouldn't be promoted in anyway whatsoever. Let them mutter to themselves on their own forums. Wikipedia should be for subjects that are worth researching. WW

• reply ermm, how can people who have never met them point out the faults in their "cult"? Surely they would then be the ones who 'slandered and libelled people they haven't even met.' This is simple logic and common sense. You are accusing people of the very things of which you yourself are by far the most guilty. It's called projection.Acropolis now 21:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• comment- strange that those arguing for a delete are using ad hominem arguments. Does an encyclopaedia entry require a character reference? As for TK only being 2 years old, they were formerly called Talras as it says in the article. Apart from Tony, no other foremost members of TK are online at all, so you can't say that they are nasty online. You could perhaps use the search term 'projection' on wiki or google, you might find it very enlightening. I feel loath to stoop to your level, so I will only say that you are making yourself look silly, "WW" aka 'anonymous who originally prodded this article.' Even for you, your standards of debate have slipped to say the least. I know you are capable of reasoned discussion, at least occasionally. Could do better.Acropolis now 21:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia should be factual. This group are not notable and have little to no influence on modern paganism (or Harry Potter) despite claims to the contrary. Quoting several Christian evangelical websites which are all using the same source does not support the supposition that Rowling has heard of the OAM. Indeed the supposition is laughable. Self promotion and/or aggrandisement is not a correct use for Wikipedia. Ad hominem attacks would be easy but vulgar. All google hits seem to be self-written and promoting articles. Is every coven going to waste space advertising on Wikipedia?Catkinsmunch 07:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• ReplyThe article is not an advertisment, it goes in depth into the history and meaning of the Ophidian current and the various elements that have gone to make up Templi_Kalendae. Unlike for instance, the 'Martin Williams' or 'Pagan Association' entries which were deleted, it is a thorough well written article about issues pertinent to the history of the traditional craft. It doesn't just say 'everyone loves Martin' and a paragraph advertising the organisations moots and handfastings. There's no advert anywhere in here. This is because TK don't run any moots, do handfastings etc- it can't possibly be an advert, due to them not trying to sell or drum up numbers for anything. At no point in this article do they imply they are even open to new membersAcropolis now 03:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reply I never believed the Harry Potter claim which is why I didn't put it in the article - I quoted it above simply to show that by attracting such stories the group is indeed notable. It is not true, however, that TK has had no influence on modern Paganism. Not only is it the only surviving Ophidian lineage group derived from the Clay-Egertons - it has also, though the OAM, spread these magical techniques to four continents. Incidentally, do you know what a sockpuppet is? It's when the same person poses as two or more people on the Internet in order to register more than one vote, for example. This whole campaign against TK is driven by your own personal animus and jealousy. You really are pathetic. TharkunColl 09:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reply You should check with people who actually worked with the Clay-Egertons and find the truth from them.Catkinsmunch 10:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reply I have. Namely, the members of TK. Wendy worked with the Clay-Egertons for eight years, and was one of the last people to see Bob alive in 1998. In 1994 they asked her to take over the running of their coven, but she had to decline because of the birth of her second daughter. You really should check both sides of a story before making a judgement you know. TharkunColl 12:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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.