Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neopaganism in Mexico


 * 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. The one "keep" has no basis in Wikipedia policy or practice.  Sandstein  05:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Neopaganism in Mexico

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article sites absolutely no sources and is not factual in any way. Until I edited it, it was claiming that Neopganism is a New Age sect, and that pagans worship Satan. Sbrianhicks (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - This discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I'll defer any opinions of my own until later.   For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. -- Finngall   talk  23:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unsourced and reads like it may well be OR. It's also very generic and not specific to Mexico. Neiltonks (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe too much discussion on religion in Mexivo is centered on Abrahamic religions. This is one of the few non-Abrahamic centered articles. It would be biased in favor of Judeo-Christian tradition to delete this article.92.6.185.38 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is against Wikipedia policy to have an article written that is completely unsourced and original research. Sbrianhicks (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Neiltonks. Deletion here does not constitute "bias"--I'm sure an article on this subject would be welcomed if it were properly sourced and if any of the listed sects were actually found to be notable by Wikipedia's standards.  Unfortunately, this is not the case with the article in its current state.  -- Finngall   talk  20:57, 17 August 2016 (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.