Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Wicca (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. I see no agreement about whether the sources are sufficiently specific, which is I think the main issue.. DGG (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian Wicca
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This OR-magnet fails the general notability guideline in that the topic lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article survived a previous AfD, but has only deteriorated since then, and in its present form is pure OR: a sort of meandering essay on some perceived affinities between Wicca and Christianity, salted with a few Bible and other quotes; the references for the article relating directly to its subject derive principally from quasi-essays on personal websites or blogs. The OR and substandard sourcing would not by themselves form a rationale for deletion if they were correctable, but they're not: once you subtract the OR, even from the earliest versions of the article, there's really no article left, and no reliable sources you could use to create one. The sole text apparently dedicated to the topic doesn't appear to describe a set of beliefs or practices that any actual group of people ever held or engaged in, and one of the most extensive online sources I found on the topic turned out to be an adaptation of the Wikipedia article. While there appear to be some number of people active on the internet who evidently would like to combine some aspects of Wicca and Christianity -- hence the Google hits on the phrase "Christian Wicca" -- there's little evidence that they form any identifiable group who hold in common any halfway-coherent set of beliefs or practices such that you could say with confidence that something called "Christian Wicca" even exists, let alone meets WP:N. --Rrburke(talk) 02:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- --Rrburke(talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentI am not convinced that this is so much a branch of wicca as it is a descriptive term for an existing school of thought, such as Unitarian Universalism, I believe it is not an independent topic. However since there is so much info out there it should be kept, since it appears notable, the article is in horrendous condition, but articles on notable topics written poorly in an overly-convoluted essay format shouldn't necessarily be deleted but cleaned up, or in this case douched.Troyster87 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - preceding comment was made by a now-blocked sockpuppet of a notorious AfD troll. - 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete No clearly independent, reliable sources are currently listed in the references. While the blogs and other SPSs clearly indicate that more than a few people are interested in this, I don't see anything that would meet WP:V or WP:N.  If kept, the article should be thoroughly trimmed of OR. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The article is in strong need of a rewrite -- probably half of the text can go, if not more. But at the end of the day, I think there is something of value regarding the Wiccan faith that can be salvaged. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It had a snowball keep last time.  It is easy confirmable that this exists, and is noteworthy enough to be mentioned.  Google gives it 28,700 hits.  Looking through some of the results, it appear to be a well established belief system.   D r e a m Focus  22:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The number of hits is so misleading as to be meaningless. For instance, 16,000 of those hits disappear once you exclude "meetup.com" pages.  The overwhelming majority of what's left are doorway pages or landing pages, whose sole purpose is spamdexing.  I tried sifting through as many of the remainder as was feasible, but was not able to come up with even a single one that might qualify as a reliable source.  The articles at experiencefestival.com turned out to be adapted from the very Wikipedia article which is the subject of this AfD.  Nor could I find a book or article on the topic -- save this, which doesn't appear to describe an actually-existing faith, but rather seems to attempt to point out affinities, and does not appear especially reliable.  If someone else has had better luck, I'm all ears.  There appear to any number of people on the internet who would like to think of themselves as both Wiccans and Christians, but very little evidence that any identifiable group of people exists who hold in common a discernible set or beliefs or practices that would qualify as "Christian Wicca".  If anybody could offer sources -- or a single source -- that would suggest this topic could satisfy the general notability guideline, I'd be grateful if they would.  --Rrburke(talk) 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22christian+wicca%22 I found a link to the books in the original nomination. Also, the original afd discussion mentioned to historical facts, of how when converting to Christianity, some also kept their Wicca beliefs, mixing them together.  Many missionaries were told not to cut down a sacred tree someone worshiped, but instead to Christianize it, give it a new meaning.  History Channel had a bit about that years ago.   D r e a m Focus  02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This Amazon review of that book is enlightening, particularly that this was a self-published book sharing the author's personal beliefs, and that it's a poor source for historical facts. I don't have the book in my hands to comment on it from personal observation, though.
 * Looking through the references is weird. There's a lot of criticism of "Christian Wicca" as a concept, and precious little description of it. An awful lot of people are awfully angry about something they simply assume the reader is already familiar with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If the book is self-published it's unsuitable and won't meet WP:RS. As for people retaining their Wicca beliefs after the spread of Christianity, this is something of an anachronism.  No practitioner would have referred to such beliefs or practices as "Wicca" prior to the 1950s.  --Rrburke(talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks significant and third party coverage as stated by WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking through the history, and reading the article when it was at its longests, and I see plenty of quotes from the Christian Bible. Witches and whatnot were listed there in places, but the word Wicca was not used.  Might be why finding notable sources is proving somewhat difficult.  Is there a single physical church that is dedicated to this religion, or does the IRS or other government agency in any nation recognize the existence of any Christian Wicca religions?  I know Wicca is recognized in the United States by the IRS, the military, and universities.  But is there officially recognized merger of the two anywhere?   D r e a m Focus  11:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles needs reliable sources, not bible quotes.--Sloane (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per notability comments and the fact that its a paradox rdunn  PLIB  10:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it links to dozens of Wikipedia articles, including Grieg's music in popular culture, and has some good sources, so it needs clean up, not deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Linking to other pages is a ridiculous reason for keeping an article. Also, none of the sources is any good, since none of them are from third parties.--Sloane (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly the books in the references should meet WP:V and WP:RS.  Or you would need to show that those sources do not apply to the article.  There is no indication in this discussion that this is the case. So clearly we need to keep the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There appears to be exactly one reliable source in the references section: it's Joanne Pearson's Wicca and the Christian Heritage, published by Routledge in 2007. The phrase "Christian Wicca" does not appear in the text even once -- which, considering the topic of the book, is extremely telling.  Nor does it appear in her 2002 Popular Dictionary of Paganism.  How could it be possible that a recently-published monograph on Wicca and Christianity would not mention the topic even a single time if it were sufficiently noteworthy to merit an encyclopedia article?


 * The remainder of the books in the references section are unlikely to meet WP:RS: For example: two are by Sylvia Browne; another editor points out above that Nancy Chandler Pittman's Christian Wicca: The Trinitarian Tradition is self-published; and Carmina Gadelica is unrelated to "Christian Wicca".


 * I found a passing reference to "Christian Wicca" in the The New Encyclopedia of the Occult which, if anything, tends to confirm that the subject is sub-notable and does not appear to exist in any sufficiently-organized fashion such as would make it possible to write an encyclopedia article about it. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is simply no such "significant coverage" to be found.  --Rrburke(talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Easily confirmable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Conforms easily to encyclopediac standards, and I don't see why we wouldn't want to include it. And why are we doing another AfD on this article? Ks64q2 (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Because, despite brusque and blithe assurances to the contrary, there is no evidence that the topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which is the principal measure of whether a topic merits an article. For those who are convinced that it has, please point the sources out so they might be added to the article.  To date, none have been offered. --Rrburke(talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The subject is certainly notable, with a quick search I found searchable books with "Christian Wicca", a few more on "Christo Wiccan", and several dozen on "Christian witches". "Crisis of Identity: Obliteration of Definition Within the Wiccan Community" might not be a source itself but has a section devoted to this subject with references that certainly seem useable. Google Scholar also has a few hits on "Christian witches". The rest is clean-up concerns and it seems apparent there is no shortage of energy for deleting material here and adding lots of tags to point those interested in constructive directions.  -- Banj e  b oi   16:11, 15 March 2009 (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.