Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagualism (Carlos Castaneda)


 * 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. WP:NOR/OR/insufficient reliable secondary sources on which to base this article. Jayjg (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nagualism (Carlos Castaneda)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Article is largely OR. The question is whether there are sufficient 2ndary sources to base an article upon Castenada's view of Nagualism. So far, I think not, but figured to bring it here so others could weigh in. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Entirely OR, except for content copied from other pages. Lots of personal reflection. Questionable relevance. Ringbang (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Beginning January 21st 2010 this article began a process of extensive revision. Numerous additional sections were added along with numerous internal and external links. This is a work in progress. One that has not been concluded. At that time (1/21/2010) a warning template citing no references were provided, it was removed on October 13 th 2010 and a new template added stating only primary sources of references are contained within the text, 10 days after the revised template was added. That was 18 days ago at this writing. 6 days ago the template requesting deletion was added. The subject matter of this articles is very controversial. Nagualism has it's detractors, people that will go to numerous means to silence it's philosophy. Criticism of Castaneda's work is suspect, often based on conjecture, few if any facts, opinions based on distorted facts, making most lacking in credibility. 10's of millions of books were sold by Carlos Castaneda. "Believers" of Nagualism, as presented by Don Juan Matus, persist to this day. Numerous sources of material regarding Nagualism exist though the linkage between Mr. Castaneda books and Anthropological content will need further research.


 * The material as presented with further revisions should remain in Wikipedia. --76.235.57.3 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above is from --Toltec Guardian 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment, honestly, if it were that controversial a subject it would be easy to source. The problem is, we don't do original research here. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment, From [Verifiability]


 * When a reliable source is required


 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.[2]


 * I object to your seemingly hasty attempt to remove the article. It shows bias, that as the page shows progress you have attempted to remove it.


 * --Toltec Guardian 17:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)
 * Warrior777, with all due respect, I see that you are essentially a single purpose account have possibly have a conflict of interest. You may be too close to this subject personally to be editing this article. In any case, the fundamental problem is that the material in the article is not supported by citations from reliable sources, and thus there is no evidence of notability. Basically, as an encyclopedia, we require that a subject of any article be covered by other sources from which we draw our information. Before nominating this article, I sought reliable sources (as wikipedia defines the term) on the nagualism and Castenada, but did not find any. Castenada's works are primary sources, and thus not suitable for use as sources (we do not research topics directly), what is needed are references to books, magazines, scholarly works, or similar that discuss Castenada's version of Nagualism in some detail. As a practitioner, do you have any such material that can be use as sources for this article? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments,
 * About this comment you made, "You may be too close to this subject personally to be editing this article." After a close review of your Wikipedia material over the course of "less then" the past year. You may not be experiences enough to recommend the deletion of any Wikipedia article. This review of your submissions also showed an emphasis on removing material with no additions regarding any subject on the Wiki. what-so-ever, again showing your inexperience. Keep plugging away in time maybe you'll get it.
 * The purpose of the Wiki. is very clear to me. The information I'm presenting is accurate with appropriate references made throughout the text citing its accuracy to Castaneda's books. Painstakingly, impeccably, accurate in fact.
 * My apologizes for not making the Wiki my sole avocation in life.
 * I am fully aware of the articles weaknesses at the moment and will state again more clearly, sourcing it will require more time. Your attempted searches regarding finding relevance information for the article are insufficient, with all due respect of course.


 * --Toltec Guardian 12:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)
 * Before I noticed that this article was up for deletion&mdash;and, therefore, before I voted delete&mdash;I took a stab at improving it. This involved purging a lot of information that was out of the article's scope, purging content already recorded in other articles, cleaning-up the "See also" section, improving the use of quotations from primary texts, copyediting and reorganizing to conform to the MoS, etc. After about an hour, what remained were a few paragraphs that amounted to exegesis of primary sources (i.e., original research), and no qualifying secondary sources. If Nuujinn hadn't already nominated it for deletion, then I would have. Since it was already nominated, I scrapped my edits because by that point I did not feel that the article was objective or salvageable.


 * I don't think the issue is finding the time to identify secondary sources. Looking for publications that support the original research in the article doesn't change the fact that the article is OR, and in places a personal exegesis. As for the having enough time, the same problems have plagued the article since a user split it from nagual nearly four years ago. In fact, since that time the article has only become encumbered with more OR. – Ringbang (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ringbang for your constructive suggestions. The following changes have been made to the article. Quotes were removed from fairuse material contained within the article. An "Also See" section has been added and some less relevant material was removed from the "Also see" section for brevity and a portions was alphabetized.


 * Now about these comments you made ............


 * What specifically do you believe is "information that was out of the article's scope", Please be specific.
 * Items that have been used from other Wiki. sources regarding Carlos Castaneda work should in fact be moved to this article and not as you have suggested, "purging content already recorded in other articles".
 * As you suggested "copyediting" (copy editing) is a very subjective point considering the composite nature of content by Wikipedia editors, a daunting task requiring perhaps years to correct. Yes, I am aware that the Wiki. has editorial guidelines regarding tone and bias. I suppose more time will be needed to bring the article into compliance with your request.
 * What specific suggestions might you make for improving the articles structure regarding the MoS. Please reference these if possible.


 * To insure the materials accuracy the article is in some ways, exegesis". Those more knowledgeable then those responding here will also be checking the material for accuracy.


 * --Toltec Guardian 10:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)
 * For the time being, most of the above is not really an issue--yes, there are issues with how the article is written and it's scope, and yes, the OR would have to go, but if the article remains, those can be dealt with later (and please do be aware that in this case, the most likely way to deal with them would be as Ringbang describes, by stripping the article down to little more than a stub and starting over). The critical issue at the moment is the lack of significant coverage of the articles's topic in reliable sources establishing notability. Please read those two policies if you have not done so heretofore, but the shorthand version is basically that we need to find some coverage of Nagualism as practiced by Castenada in books, magazines or newspapers, and reference those in the article. Nagualism in general will likely not do, since we have an article on that already, and Castenada's works won't do, because they are primary sources (and someone writing about themselves or their work does not establish notability as that term is used here). If such sources cannot be found, the article will most likely be deleted, since having such sources is a requirement for all articles on wikipedia. Please let me know if this is not clear or if you have any additional questions. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2010 (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.