Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist Witchcraft


 * 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 per discussion. &mdash;Xyrael / 16:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Atheist Witchcraft
Delete seems entirely non-notable - I can find about 10 google references to it Charlesknight 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I should also add the one reference that the page has, makes no mention of this at all. --Charlesknight 23:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Easily improvable with a bit of work, and I can see where the author is going with this. HawkerTyphoon 23:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I agree that there needs to be verifiable sources cited on the page, but it's only fault was mentioning "Atheist Wicca". There is nothing intrinsicly wrong with atheism and practising magic, however.


 * Well you are doing better than me - after a month, it has not a single reference (sorry it has one reference which says nothing at all), it get 10 or so google hits (5 of which seem to people forums of people saying "this term is a load of bollocks"). If this is improvable where is the verfiable support going to come from?


 * In what way? The more I look into it - it seems to be an entirely made-up (and makes no sense as Atheism is a disbelief and being a wicca requires a belief - it's like a article called "atheist muslims" ) make up by about 5 people and not used anywhere by anyone. --Charlesknight 23:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The article is contradictory to itself and looks like original research. JungleCat    talk / contrib  23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete what's next, Holistic Solipsism? Danny Lilithborne 23:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, barring the inclusion of a verifiable source, and some indication that a reasonable number of people are using the term outside this article. Joyous! | Talk 02:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable protologism. Unverifiable. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 03:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete When I saw this article linked, I laughed out loud - thinking it was a joke - perhaps something mentioned in a tv show or movie that needed merging into the proper article. Instead I found this so-called article. I have never heard of atheist witchcraft, and the idea seems odd at best. Squarecircle if you ask me, and the article did nothing to prove otherwise. SnaX 23:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I was a pagan when I was a teenager, and now I'm an atheist. But that's not the point.  When I studied Wicca at one of the largest occult stores in New York's East Village, a good number of the people I studied with did not believe in a deity, or flat-out denied anything mystical, instead emphasizing the importance/benefits/etc of ritual, for which reason they were attracted to Wicca/etc.  Community and female empowerment were also prominent themes/motivations.  Furthermore, no dogma is a founding principle of modern Paganism, and while it's been at least 10 years since I read it, I'm quite sure Margot Adler (Drawing Down the Moon) discussed modern witches/etc who lack any belief in the supernatural, and the acceptance of such individuals in the larger community (I really don't have the time to look that up right now).  Anyway, I recognize all of this is anecdotal evidence, but I assure you that atheism and non-theism (?) are strong subcurrents within modern Paganism.  Zweifel 08:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)note my name
 * Also, one of my best friends is much the atheist, but is also a member of her local Reconstructionist Jewish temple. While I am sure members of other Jewish sects would claim she is therefore not Jewish, she certainly identifies as one.  The criticisms raised here relate to 1) notability, which I guess I haven't satisfied, despite my personal experience with the subject (albeit with something of an avante guard within the Pagan community); and, 2) semantic/doctrinal/etc issues, which are utter bollocks.  Paganism is as Pagans do.  Keep the article (though definitely put up the sign which says it doesn't cite sources).  Zweifel 08:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)  more anecdotal evidence


 * How does your strong keep match up with Verifiability? Because it seems to be totally at odds as far as I can see? --Charlesknight 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS. Whispering(talk/c) 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. OR, without much of a point. Arguing that the term can make sense does not mean that it needs an article. JPD (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep While the term does not show strong evidence of circulation, via Google search, I'd like to point out this is because it is the most common term to describe this beleif, not any official term. Due to its nature, there is no organized group that defines and names. The concept is in wider practice than most would imagine. --Jade 06:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete For reasons I cited in the article's discussion, including notability and epistemological inconsistency. Starghost (talk | contribs) 00:37, 2 September 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.