Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goddess movement


 * 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 keep. ST47 (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Goddess movement
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page has numerous identified issues that have gone unresolved for over half a decade. Its sources are closely connected to the subject, it uncritically uses religious texts without referring to secondary sources for analysis, and it does not discern between fact and fiction. It also may be in violation of the WP:NPOV rule, as the lead states that the Goddess movement "has no centralized tenets of belief". If that is indeed the case, then there cannot be an "evolving consensus" or "commonly held tenets and concepts" from a neutral standpoint without some reference to data or a reliable source that indicate those trends, of which there is currently none. Panicles3 (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article as is is a complete mess, and as such I would not oppose a delete vote per WP:TNT, but it seems to clear notability guidelines. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support a delete vote per WP:TNT, given that it "suggests articles should be deleted even if the topic is notable if the content is not repairable", and this article is clearly riddled with issues to the point where trying to salvage it may be harder than simply starting over. Panicles3 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that Panicles3 is the nominator. This is not an additional delete !vote. SpinningSpark 17:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not seeing this as so far gone it is a WP:TNT case. On a quick read through, I'm certainly not seeing a widespread confusion "between fact and fiction".  That's not to say there isn't any, but if there is it can be tagged/removed and we will still be left with a decent article.  I don't see a major issue with the sourcing either.  In fact, I don't know what the nom means by "uncritically uses religious texts".  If by this is meant the sources are written by adherents, then that is not the same thing at all.  We don't reject sources on Christianity because they are written by Christians, but we do reject the Bible as a RS except for claims about what the Bible says.  I suspect that the major reason the banner templates have stayed on the article so long is that they are not explicit in identifying the problematic texts, many of which may have been fixed years ago.  This is a common problem with such templates, they are used to tag an article that is 90% good when inline tags on the specific problem items should have been used.  I reject utterly the existence of these templates as a rationale for deletion. SpinningSpark 19:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. The subject is clearly notable - per even a cursory WP:BEFORE in google books. If you think the present article is atrocious - stub it down to a paragraph or two. I'm not entirely convinced it is atrocious - articles on religions, legends, TV series, anime, comics, etc. often, though this is not advisable, contain some fancruft - after all describing the basic tenants of the mythology are part of such an article - it is a tad difficult to describe Christianity without describing the narrative of Christ. Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever the problems with the article, the movement is very clearly notable -- multiple books have been published on the subject every decade since the 1970s or 1980s. The movement is somewhat diffuse, and not at all centrally organized, so statements about it have to accommodate various variations in beliefs and practices... AnonMoos (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject is notable and has plenty of RS references (such as The BBC, this and this as well as academic sources, but does need to be rewritten to be better. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2019 (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.