Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Pagan (literature)


 * 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. m.o.p 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Pagan (literature)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article reads like a very minor personal essay with no sources or context for it's notability about an extremely minor literary ctricism term. IrishStephen (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as an utterly unsourced original essay about a non-notable neologism (at best). Carrite (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, delete unless a citation to a scholarly journal of literary criticism can be sourced. After that, the article then needs to be rewritten. VanIsaacWS 00:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * what do you mean, utterly unsourced? How is "Cyril Connolly's introduction to the first English edition of Albert Camus' L'étranger" not a "source"? I would argue it is a WP:RS of the first order. speedy keep, consider merge. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the expert after attempting to add citations to the article as part of WP:URA. Given the articles current state, the lack of citations, and the all the comments above, I support Deletion.  As the article stands it would need a complete rewrite and significant work to meet meet WP standards. The article has been without improvement since 2006. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carrite, WP:NEO, WP:OR, and WP:HAMMER. While in theory, it could become an article, it does not appear to be ready yet. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources at all, and I can't even find much of anything in this essay that could be backed up by a reliable source.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:42, 17 August 2011 (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.