Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paganistan


 * 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. It seems like there is a general agreement that the topic of paganism in the twin cities area is a notable one, but many users object to having that content under this title as it is a rather obscure neologism. Many of those arguing to delete early on seem to have softened their position as the debate progressed. At this time there does not appear to be a consensus to delete this article, or to keep it under this title. I would suggest that the best way forward is to begin a renaming discussion on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Paganistan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is referenced entirely by a thesis along with a number blogs on the topic. A Google search on the title brings up zero news hits which brings the article's claim that the name is "generally accepted" into serious question. Google web search brings up a number of hits to blogs plus an Examiner.com (which is of questionable reliability) post by the author of that thesis. Prod was challenged with a comment endorsing the Pagan Newswire Collective as a "recognized journalistic source". This is questionable as this is a self-published group blog which isn't going to meet guidelines for reliable sources. Including this term in the Minneapolis – Saint Paul article might be appropriate based on the on that thesis but I'm not finding sufficient independnt coverage to support a dedicated article on the subject RadioFan (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The following text was posted by the author of the article, a fact which he/she should have acknowledged.Edison (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Examiner articles referenced above were written by a doctor of anthropology who spent over five years studying Paganistan, which means that they are a reference to a reliable and respected source who's work is peer reviewed. The article also contains a reference to a doctoral dissertation about Paganistan which was peer reviewed, highly scrutinized, and scholarly. I've requested a copy of the dissertation through inter-library loan, and will soon be adding more references. Paganistan is the subject of an ongoing anthropological study for which someone received a doctorate, which means that Paganistan has received a scholarly peer reviewed acceptance of significance.

The Pagan Newswire Collective is a Pagan News outlet, which has been utilized as a newswire by major news outlets. The articles which were referenced are of equal to superior quality to articles published in most of this nation's newspapers, and written by authors with extensive journalistic experience. The authors did not self publish. They submitted their articles to the newswire, the collective reviewed the articles and chose to publish the articles. The same process was in place for the MNPagan article which was referenced.Jdoggiedogg (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC) — Jdoggiedogg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Much is made of the notability conveyed by one dissertation, written by someone who acknowledged being a part of that community for 10 years or so before the date of the dissertation. That seems a bit lacking as an independent source. PhD dissertations accepted by accredited universities are routinely cited in articles, but rank lower than articles published in actual peer reviewed scholarly journals. It is a primary source. Articles by secondary sources with significant coverage of this community are desirable to establish notability. The dissertation says that this is not a "faith community" of people with shared beliefs. It is not a well defined geographic feature, like a populated hamlet which is a point on a map, but rather people of various pagan beliefs spread over counties. Most of the article is promotional in tone, advertising businesses operated by pagans in the Twin cities. A newswire operated by a group is certainly not an "independent" source, even if some of its output gets published. A newspaper article written by the author of the dissertation is also not an independent source beyond the dissertation, and a newspaper is not considered a "peer reviewed scientific journal.". Edison (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable/not generally recognized term. At first glance the article appears to be well referenced, but there is not a single Independent Reliable Source in the 30+ references listed. The references are self-referential; they come entirely from within the Pagan community, as does the PhD thesis. A Google News search finds literally nothing. A Google search finds nothing Wikipedia would accept as a Reliable Source (Wikipedia finds the Examiner to be unacceptable as a source; if you try to post an Examiner reference on Wikipedia it will not post). Google Scholar finds only two things: the thesis, and one other thing (pamphlet? book? unclear) written by the author of the thesis. Neither of them has ever been cited by anyone else, suggesting that the term has no scholarly use. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The Pagan Newswire collective is a news organization that serves the Pagan community and has eight bureaus in the United States and one in South America. Jason Pitzl-Waters, the Cordinator for PNC, writes for The Wild Hunt and for the Washington Post.  http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Jason_Pitzl-Waters/ NOTE:  I am the co-editor for the PNC-Minnesota bureau, which was used as a source in this and another Wikipedia entry.   I have a degree in Mass Communication from the University of Maryland (1992) and a DINFOS graduate (1989) http://www.dinfos.dma.mil/ I was a journalist in the USAF (Zaragoza AB, Spain) for both radio and TV and covered the first Gulf War from Saudi Arabia. (1989-1992)  I produced the 6pm news for ABC affiliate KAAL-TV.  (1993-1998) http://www.kaaltv.com/ I am a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and have received 2011 credentials from the Minnesota GOP to cover their events. http://www.spj.org/ Articles for PNC-Minnesota are not self-published and there is an editorial process similar to most every other news organization.  Reporters send in their stories for review from an editor.  The editor checks the story to ensure it complies with standard journalistic practices.  Additionally, PNC-Minnesota has a fact checker, Heather Biedermann, who is a research and technology librarian at the Minnesota State University in Mankato.  The story is then sent back to the reporter for revisions, edited and then published, published, or shelved.  The process is similar for editorials. CaraSchulz  — CaraSchulz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"This is, after all, Paganistan." http://m.startribune.com/articles/206115007 "The Twin Cities metro area -- dubbed "Paganistan" by Wiccans for having one of the highest witch concentrations in the country -- has an estimated 20,000 witches who meet in 236 different covens or groups, according to the Rev. John Mayer, executive director of the nonprofit City Vision, a Christian organization that tracks local religious data." CaraSchulz (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Cara Schulz
 * Comment(talk) 19:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Cara Schulz Media mentions of "Paganistan" that come up on google search: http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Minnesota-Monthly/April-2009/MNMO-Recommends/ (Third article down)


 * Comment It's worth pointing out that this AFD isn't questioning paganism, it's seeking consensus on whether or not the phrase Paganistan can meet notability guidelines. That being said the magazine and Star Tribune links above are probably sufficient to source a sentence in the article on Minneapolis – Saint Paul on the phrase along side a sentence or two on the practice of paganism in the area.  I'm still not seeing a dedicated article as appropriate here, especially as it stands today and it's promotional tone. --RadioFan (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The term 'Paganistan' has entered local politics as well see: http://www.dumpbachmann.com/2008/10/paganistan-vs-bachmannistan.htmI recommend examining more than just the first two pages of a Google search before you call something 'unreferenced'. While I understand what you mean about the promotional tone I have seen that in other Wikipedia articles. I will try to find an example. Rev. Jack Green (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Google searches are useful in helping find reliable sources but not everything that is brought up there meets Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources. The link you mention above is a blog which, as is mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, generally doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for source reliability.  Of particular concern is that the term is appearing mostly within the community.  If there is a Pagan wiki somewhere, this article would probably make a good addition there.--RadioFan (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Title is non-notable neologism; topic itself is theoretically worth writing about (pagans in Twin Cities) but there don't appear to be enough reliable sources to do so (lots of blogs and commercial websites, but no books or news) at the moment. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" The news articles make plain that the phrase "Paganistan" is in common use and is culturally significant. The Paganistan entry, if written in a neutral tone with more history given, would be similar in nature to The Castro, San Francisco CaraSchulz (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Cara Schulz
 * KeepThe two articles cited from Minnesota Monthly and the Star Tribune do more than make a "trivial mention" of the number of Pagans in the Twin Cities and it's name of Paganistan, although Paganistan was not the main focus of the articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline


 * Comment According to the Notability guidelines, "deletion should be a last resort." At this point, we should be following the steps to improve the article.  If that fails, only then should deletion be considered. There is no reason to fast track this for deletion when the article can be improved.  Given more time, scholarly sources like The Pomegranate and other difficult to access papers can be referenced GNG CaraSchulz (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Cara Schulz
 * Comment This article is not being "fast tracked" for deletion. The discussion is still open and will continue until concensus is reached.  Note that that doesn't mean a unanimous keep/delete opinion is required and that the burden is still on the editor adding the material to the article to provide sources that meet reliability guidelines. If you believe that there are sources that haven't been considered here, please provide some more information about those sources here so we can discuss whether or not they meet WP:RS.--RadioFan (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete because there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss this neologism in depth. The many blog posts and self-published items listed as "references" are of no use in establishing notability by Wikipedia standards.  When reliable sources use the term "Paganistan", it is in passing rather than in depth, and only when quoting local Pagans and Wiccans.  No one other than Pagans and Wiccans calls the area "Paganistan".  The dissertation mentioning the term is a primary source written by a person with a vested interest in promoting this term and the community it describes.  The Pagan Newswire is not an independent source, since it exists to promote this and other similar communities.  Comparisons to San Francisco's Castro District are invalid, since the history and gay character of that neighborhood has been described in depth by vast numbers of independent, reliable sources for at least 40 years.  That comparison only serves to emphasize how non-notable the term "Paganistan" really is. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - but massively overhaul the sourcing, dumping the commercial stuff, blogs and other primary sources in favor of books and press. This article suffers from the usual problems in under-reported minority communities: they are often overlooked by the mundane society among whom they dwell. However, a look at the "books" links provides some references, and a search of the local press would add some more. Full disclosure: I was asked to look at this off-Wiki by friends of this community. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This fails WP:GNG due to lack of third party reliable sources that give significant coverage. First Light (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Google book search shows six results when I search for "Paganistan" AND "Minnesota". Not sure if any of them would be considered reliable sources.  They talk about Paganism in the twin cities and mention it is called Paganistan by some.  Its odd that Google news archive search shows zero results.    D r e a m Focus  06:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: neologism that appears to be largely the creation of one Murphy (Meredith) Pizza. Little indication of widespread use, or "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Article is already being improved with reliable sources (several mainstream news and scholarly books by recognized experts). Entry is also being edited for a more neutral tone.  Article can continue to be improved.  CaraSchulz (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Cara Schulz
 * Comment. How many "Keep" !votes does CaraSchulz plan to make? I count four, so far.... :) Dohn joe (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Don't worry, Dohn joe, we can count on the closing administrator to discount the repeat votes. CaraSchulz, new editors are always welcome here, but are expected to learn our social norms as well as our policies and guidelines, especially when commenting in areas like Articles for Deletion.  Please strike out your repeat votes.  Closing administrator, please note that editors CaraSchulz and Rev. Jack Green are new single purpose accounts whose editing is limited to this topic.  Editor Jdoggiedogg who wrote the article is also a new single purpose account.  Editor Orange Mike, on the other hand, is an experienced editor and administrator who both knows our policies and admits that he was stealth canvassed off-Wiki on this matter.  Orange Mike, can you please point out two reliable, independent sources that discuss this topic in depth?  We have no exception for "under reported" minority communities and countless topics regarding minority communities are notable and covered by Wikipedia because they have been covered in depth by reliable, independent sources, which is our standard here.  Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * reply - Cullen, the Minnesota Monthly article and the AltaMira Press book are the two that stand out in my mind. This is not the strongest Keep I've ever seen, but it meets the standards (although not as unquestionably as Cara believes). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm an optimist. CaraSchulz (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz
 * Response Thank you for the message, Dohn joe, I've changed the header on my responses to comply.  I have just begun to edit Wikipedia entries and am going through the process on this one first to learn the steps and rules, but I have a list of articles that are tagged for rescue that I will be editing and adding citations.  Everybody has to start somewhere.  Cullen asks if there are two WP:RS/reliable, independent sources that discuss this topic, Paganistan, in depth.  According to WP:SIGCOV Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]  There are now multiple, independent, reliable sources such as an academic/reference book and news articles that have been added as citations to the article.  More should follow.  The article is also being re-written for a more WP:NPOV but more time should be allotted for this.  As the guidelines note, the article doesn't need to be a final draft and articles are expected to be added to and improved over time.  This article was created approximately 1 month ago by a first time editor, and is tagged for rescue.CaraSchulz (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz
 * Comment Could you explain a bit more about which sources you see as reliable and covering the topic in depth? Looking at the Star Tribune sources, one mentions the phrase once and is focused on a prisoner's suing the state, the other doesn't mention Paganistan at all.  The rest, as has been mentioned several times in this AFD are self published, mostly blogs.--RadioFan (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Responce Sure. The sources don't need to cover the topic in depth or be the main focus, that's a higher bar than is actually set by guidelines.  The Minnesota Monthly article uses the phrase in a way that is plain and apparent that it is in common and acceptable use. The title of the article is Welcome to Paganistan and goes on to talk about significance and history of the Pagan community and why it has that name. This is more than a "trivial mention."  The second article, in the Star Tribune, is focused on Wiccan prisoner rights, but frames the discussion in the context of this area, Pagansistan, being very populated with Pagans, as it is a very Pagan-friendly place to live, who are very active in Pagan rights.  Another source is the Book "Her Hidden Children: The Rise of Wicca And Paganism in America" by Chas Clifton published by AltaMira Press.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chas_Clifton  In this book, he covers the history of contemporary Paganism in the USA and there is a section that talks about Gnosticon, the influx of Pagans to the Twin Cities, and how it came to be called Paganistan.  I realize that the paper by Dr. Pizza is being considered not a usable source as she is also a Pagan, but many experts in particular fields are also involved in that field.  There are many sources cited on topics like environmentalism that are by persons deeply involved in environmentalism.  There are also experts on Christianity who also happen to be Christian - and so forth - just most of the time it is not called out.  Dr Murphy also presented on this topic at the American Academy of Religions in 2006 (http://www.aarweb.org/meetings/annual_meeting/past_and_future_meetings/2006/abstracts.asp)  She was a contributor and editor for the "Handbook on Contemporary Paganism" by Brill Handbooks.  This does seem to booster her expert status.  I also realize that at first glance some may mistake the PNC-Minnesota as a group blog, but it is an independent, non-profit news organization.  The staff have degrees in journalism or related fields, experience working at mainstream news organizations, and there is an editorial process that reporters follow (editors review all work) before articles and editorial can be published.  Does this help?  Is this what you're asking for?  CaraSchulz (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz
 * Comment' I think you are reading a bit too much into these two articles. The article is about this prisoner's practice of his religious beliefs, not the phrase, not even the community.  I'm seeing that as a passing reference rather than "framing the discussion" in the article.  Just to be clear, Pizza's paper is not questioned here because of her religion, let's also not get wrapped up in WP:OTHERSTUFF.  All in all, I and others here, are still not convinced that this phrase is as widely accepted as claimed.  As for the Chas Clifton's book, can we focus on references that support this claim of notability. The phrase Paganistan is mentioned only once in that book and only in a footnote (Page 68: "The Twin Cities area of Minnesota is referred to by some American Pagans as Paganistan").  Not all, not many, some call it that and from within that community.  This doesn't support this phrase as being in common use as was claimed in the original article and in this AFD.  Again, I'm sure a good article can be written about this religious community in this area but I, and other editors here, just aren't seeing sufficient use of the label in question to warrant a dedicated article.  Normally I'd recommend a merge to a broader article written from a neutral point of view titled something like "paganism in Minnesota" but this article is so promotional sounding that I'm not sure what could be merged  --RadioFan (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Paganism in Minnesota" is actually not a bad suggestion for an article title. However - even then we will run into some of the same challenges that we are facing now with this article with sources, especially if it is challenged and nominated for deletion as quickly as this article and the Sacred Paths Center article were - under a month, I believe. Several of us are trying to learn from this experience because no one wants an ugly article, but it is a bit difficult to learn and improve when the timeline from first posting an article to deletion is so short. Content can be edited and more sourcing found if given time.  My understanding is that once this type of discussion is created there are 7 days for discussion and then a decision is reached? CaraSchulz (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz
 * Comment If a new article needs time to be crafted, you should consider creating any new articles under your user space before introducing it to the main article space. You'll have as much time as you need to put the article together without fear of deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. CaraSchulz (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The assertion is that this is a recent neologism coined by Dr. Pizza is incorrect. It is a neologism but it was coined in 1989 by local performance artist and Neopagan activist Steven Posch who had been an active member of the community since sometime in the 1970s. I can't cite it because it is solely print material and I neither own it nor possess copies of local media reviews. I lived in the Minneapolis area in the mid-90's until 2005. I was more involved with the Asatru (Nordic reconstructionist neopaganism) community and they are not actively engaged with the "Paganistan" (predominantly Wiccan and American eclectic neopaganism) community but it was common knowledge in the Twin Cities area (the 11 county metro area functions as one community, there is no real division between Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the surrounding suburbs). The term was used by local media (Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, City Pages, etc) occasionally over the past 10-15 years but their archives are not fully indexed by Google and are locked to non-subscribers. A LexisNexis search would be useful if any contributors have a subscription. Dr. Pizza is a relative newcomer to "Paganistan." She was an anthropological researcher from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who only moved to the Twin Cities after completing her doctorate. Anthony_arndt (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2011
 * comment - then find copies of those articles from the Strib, etc. and cite them. Surely somebody has clippings in a drawer somewhere; or the public library has access to the online archives? There is no requirement that cited articles must be available online! Nobody gives a darn if a Olde Pagan Shoppe opened in 2003 or 2004; what's needed is actual citations to actual articles from those outside the pagani themselves. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article covers the emergence of a new and interesting area of religious observance, and is certainly notable among a large subsection of the community which it encompasses. Some of the references are weak it is true, but there are now enough reliable references there to establish verifiability and notability, most especially the first three references listed. Per Wikipedia's long-standing policy, when in doubt an article should be kept and improved rather than simply deleted. Deletion allows for no improvement of the article, and continual improvement of Wikipedia is what we strive for. I have already made some edits to improve the quality of the references, I would hope that other editors would spend more time productively on improving this article rather than on writing long pieces agitating for its deletion. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment let's not confuse the phrase this article covers with the religion. Paganism is hardly new, neither is it's observance in Minnesota.   If the term isn't even in common use among that community (as shown by one of the references recently added), it is going to be hard to meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Our point is that the usage is rising rapidly and as the citations shown below and above show it is being picked up by non-pagans and non-Minnesotans. Rev. Jack Green (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I know you folks know full well the insane history around the Wikipedia entry for Evolution and that whole debate. That's where I first started lurking on Wikipedia. You are and always have been used by Fundamentalists for their own ends. I commend you as a group for fighting back whenever and wherever you can. You missed one (see above link) and we can fix that. The history of the entries around abortion document this too. Here are some politically significant secondary citations you may consider just a 'trivial' mention of us. Christian groups are now talking about us and the ‘threat’ we pose for daring to exercise our first amendment rights under the Constitution: http://www.generals.org/prayer/root-52/prayer-reports/minnesota-prayer-guide/ You can find us about 1/3rd way down, the main site is out of Texas and we are apparently about as evil as the Swedish Socialists of Duluth and the abortionist founder of the Women’s Health Center in the Twin Cities. We have also come up at a Christian Conference in Washington D.C.: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=1339 The D.C. Christian conference attendees heard about our explosive growth not just in Minnesota but all over the English Speaking world and a they are no doubt pondering what to do about it. While the program synopsis of the panel is brief I think the panel discussion itself was considerably more detailed. I for one do not consider their mention of us here in Minnesota at a Fundamentalist Christian Conference in Washington D.C. trivial. I have kids to protect. Considering how instrumental the ‘C Street’ cabal was in the ‘Kill the Gays’ bill in Uganda (which was passed) I don’t take this development lightly at all. I’d like to end my addition of new secondary citations on a more positive note. like the others above a friend (Momhen) found this link which is apparently a location review for a Real Estate company talking about the pluses and minuses of the Twin Cities area, the Paganistan reference is about three fourths of the way down: http://www.bestplaces.net/backfence/viewcomment.aspx?id=BA0E0724-77DD-42FF-9C35-C41BFE84CEE7&city=Minneapolis_MN&p=52743000 While I am a new user, I am not single issue. This Paganistan entry thing is just my FIRST issue. Once it is handled one way or another I plan on fixing the bias in the first link above and expanding outwards from there. Including into other topics as well. Your Native American entries including at Minneapolis_Saint_Paul/#Religion are atrocious. I’ve been reading up on wiki text protocols as well. Not so much on the social protocols. Keep this entry, we’ll add these secondary citations as we find them. Rev. Jack Green (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: While most of you folks in this discussion may not be biased against pagans, many people are 'out there', including on Wikipedia. What you do here WILL have implications for us as a people. Don’t want to believe me? Go look at this wiki-link right now and then come back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pagans Socrates, Alexander the Great, Plato, Herodotus? How about Sargon of Akkad or Shankara of India? They don’t count? That list is hardly neutral and is obviously biased towards Christianity. I suspect some Christian put it together to keep track of modern pagan writers.
 * The above comments are a bit unfair to the editors who have contributed to this discussion, all in a very neutral, very constructive way. Other folks "out there" aren't pertinent to this discussion.  I'm unsure of the reliability of the first two links you mention. As for the final link you mention above also suffers from the problem that it self published, a comment on a website, and does not meet WP:RS.--RadioFan (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Response I'm sorry if you feel my comments are unfair but try to see how it makes us feel too. 1) I understand you're trying to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic with secondary source citation and I applaud that to a point but there are still numerous Wikipedia pages for example focused on obscure anime characters far longer than the Paganistan article talking about thousands of real people. Just because fans (secondary sources) write about those characters as much as or more than the characters creators do (primary sources if I understand your criteria correctly). I do think you should have different sourcing criteria for real people as opposed to fictional. 2) Folks out there are pertinent to this discussion because when you make decision about what constitutes a 'legitimate' entry when it concerns living human beings it can have real life effects far more significant than a few fans of Space Pirate Ryoko. They are not the same thing and ought to be treated differently. 3) I am not sure what you mean by 'reliable' in this context. Rev. Jack Green (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep; serious improvement needed. I share some of the same concerns as editors above that Paganistan is an in-community term and not a widely-used term. As a result, it's lacking evidence of the kind of broad notability that subjects should have. The problem is, I'm not convinced yet that the article needs deleted. I'd rather see the article be developed further. If, 3–6 months down the road, the article hasn't improved, then a second AfD would be in order, and I'd be inclined to recommend deleting the article. However, I think the article still has a chance, and I think the best option for incubation is for the article to remain in mainspace and maintenance tagged rather than to get moved to an incubator. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I will withdraw my recommendation to delete if the article is moved (renamed) to a more neutral name, such as "Paganism in Minnesota" as suggested above. That move would eliminate my concerns about a neologism as an article title.  I would also not object to referenced mention of the term "Paganistan" within such an article with a new name.  In return, I ask for removal of blogs and self-published sources as references.  Rev. Jack Green, I want to assure you that I have no personal bias against Paganism or Wicca.  I am personally friendly toward people of all faiths and to atheists and agnostics as well.  I bid you peace. Cullen328 (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Response I appreciate that and I looked at your User Page enough to see you're sincere. I am just as sincere in my insistence that real people ought to have citation criteria of a different sort than say Marta, an Orion Slave Girl from the Old Star Trek series even though I admit I'm full blown Trek addict. Rev. Jack Green  (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the best outcome here will be deleting this article and starting a new one under the title Paganism in Minnesota. Not move, not merge.  Delete and start over.  I see that there has been some activity overnight with the article, a move may be appropriate now.  Many of the blogs have been removed as references.  Thats a good start.  I also see that the claim in the intro has been soften to the more supportable "some" call it Paganistan.  This still isn't enough to support a dedicated article on the subject so a move, a section in an article on Paganism in the area, but not a dedicated article.  The history section still reads a bit like a directory of pagan businesses in the area.  It may be that the community grew out of the existence of these businesses but that's not clear from the article and if that is the case (which is what I think the editors are trying to convey here) that must come from some reliable source that explicitly identifies the arrival of these businesses as contributing to the creation of this community.  Local news articles about a bookstore opening coupled with "about us" pages from their official websites doesn't cut it.  Putting those together and calling it a reference that this defines the history of the community is original research in the form of WP:SYNTHESIS.  There is also still some large claims in there that isn't well supported  ("This metaphysical shop became a center of Pagan activities" is referenced by a primary source, a bookstore's "about us" page ) RadioFan (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I am unclear why there is such haste to delete this article instead of allowing a modest time for it to improve? Deletion is supposed to be a last resort, not the first step.  I felt we were moving towards a compromise/consensus with the idea by editor Cullen328 on "Paganism in Minnesota" - and there is a long, documented history of Paganism in Minnesota - EXAMPLE:  The Reformed Order of Druids was created at Carleton College - http://apps.carleton.edu/admissions/activities/druids/  However, you appear to be firmly set against that, as well.  Can you articulate why? CaraSchulz (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think our comments passed in the night here.  Cullen328 and I are in agreement that a broader article on the area is appropriate.  However there are still significant sourcing problems that need to be adressed, particularly in the history section.  The term "Paganistan" for this area is a bit like the term "Lynchvegas" for Lynchburg, Virginia.  It is used by some in the area but not enough to gather enough attention that it's made its way into the mainstream media (which is why both terms bring up zero Google news hits but a number of blogs and local businesses).  For the Twin Cities area, it promotes a sense of community, for Lynchburg it's a cutsey term poking fun at the presence of a local bible college.  In the end,  the terms are useful to local businesses in promoting their products and neither is notable enough to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia article.  Not sure what the Order of the Druids comment has to do with this topic though.  I hope that a Paganism in Minnesotta can stay on topic better than Paganistan has.  The us-vs-them approach to editing this article has drawn this AFD out much longer than necessary.  The goal here has never been to be against the religion, the area or anyone associated with it, the goal has always been to improve the encyclopedia.  Given the overwhelming number of "delete" !votes, I dont think it appropriate to withdraw and close this AFD myself but hope that an admin will come along soon and close this as a move and improve.  Editors of the new article should be careful to maintain a neutral point of view and especially careful to provide reliable sources.  This article is going to continue to receive scrutiny.--RadioFan (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - "This article is going to continue to receive scrutiny." Heh - yes, by the newpage patrol.  What you've had here is a brand new editor (Jdoggiedog) working on his first articles and trying to learn how to do them so he could do more. (Although I don't think he will be doing this anymore) There's a few others, like myself, who are interested in learning the process and the culture and hopeful that we can have time to learn crafting articles through hands-on experience and open collaboration.  I'll wait for an admin to let us all know what will happen before I do anything more with the Paganistan article.  In the meantime, this WP:SPA will get back to editing articles on gardening, quadriga, and the Twin Cities.CaraSchulz (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment No offense is meant with the SPA tagging, it's just more information for the closing admin to consider that is often placed on comments from editors who's first contribution is in an AFD such as this.--RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment No offense taken. Just lightening it up.  Everyone is a rookie sometime. I was all about working on articles in general (and this one in particular) but I was trying to read up and learn more before I started as I thought there would be plenty of time and I didn't expect the delete conversation to happen so fast.  So instead I'm trying to learn on the fly in a way that is probably sub-optimal.  You'll probably find me more often in some really obscure sections of history in Wikipedia.  Mithridates VI of Pontus and Black Sea history is an area of special interest.  CaraSchulz (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz
 * Mithridates? He died old. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Move Don't usually vote in these things so I'm not sure if "move" is a normal vote, but there is clearly some useful and reasonably well-sourced information here but the name is also clearly a non-notable neologism. Best solution as noted above is the move to Paganism in Minnesota.  Why delete good information just because an over-enthusiastic editor put it in the wrong place? -- InspectorTiger (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I wrote this article because I believed Paganistan fits Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission, and I still believe this. This has been a learning process for me, particularly about the rules Wikipedia has in place to reduce frivolous articles and I recognize the value of these rules. A lot of work is currently being done to improve the references that fulfill the Wikipedia reference rules. I can understand how the use of Pagan Newswire Collective could be seen as not a legitimate source, since it is hard to tell if they are simply promotional or not, and they utilize sites like Wordpress for the dissemination of their product. However, the Pagan Newswire Collective is an acceptable sources since it does have editors and is run by journalists (as sited above). On the Identifying reliable sources page it says, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis." Also "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight."  Neither of these things are true with the Pagan Newswire Collective. Given that the writers of the Pagan Newswire Collective are the experts on this topic, with an editorial system in place, the articles from this source which were originally sited for the article should be accepted as a source for this article. The most significant piece of reference material for this article is Dr. Pizza's completed dissertation "Paganistan: The emergence and persistence of a contemporary Pagan community in Minnesota's Twin Cities". On the Identifying reliable sourcespage it says, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material" and "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan."  A request was made for an article devoted to Paganistan, and with Dr. Pizza's dissertation we're able to offer an entire book. Most of the people seeking to keep this article are much newer to Wikipedia than those seeking to delete it.  The Please do not bite the newcomers page recognizes that "New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource." and "By empowering newcomers, we can improve the diversity of knowledge, perspectives, and ideals on Wikipedia."  Normally with encyclopedias, experts are consulted on articles. It is apparent that most of the people seeking to keep the article know much more about the topic than those seeking to delete it, so hopefully our relative expertise and overall potential will be noted. So far newspaper articles have been presented, a reference in a book, a doctoral dissertation, and work is still being done to improve the article. It is my belief that Wikipedia is not improved by the deletion of this article, while keeping the article helps Wikipedia live up to its mission. Jdoggiedogg (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

These two additional news references were found by Magenta via the Newsbank Database through the Hennepin County Library System. 1) Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities - Monday, May 23, 1994 “Pagans seek respect and a place to call their own - Religion is legitimate, has spiritual base, followers say…” "They estimate that there are 3,000 to 10,000 Pagans in Minnesota, one of the largest concentrations in the country. They call this area ‘Paganistan’ in honor of the Pagans. " 2) Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities - Saturday, October 31, 1992 “Witches and pagans gather for a special New Year's Eve…” “The Twin Cities may have one of the largest pagan populations in the United States, so large that one member calls Minneapolis and St. Paul ‘…the capitol of Paganistan.’” I will try and fit them into the Paganistan article as soon as possible. But this demonstrates some pagans used ‘Paganistan’ in the early 90’s, more by the mid 90’s and even more today and actually I believe most judging by Dr. Pizza’s work. Also much has been made of Dr. Murphy Pizza as an unreliable source and/or a primary source above. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. UMI has published two million dissertations since 1940. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." She has her degree. She was not pagan when she began her research. She did NOT coin the term ‘Paganistan’. Linguist Steven Posch M.S. did. She merely reported it as part of her dissertation. The fact the Dr. Murphy Pizza went native during her research does NOT in any way invalidate her research if it passes peer review. Which of course it did. The Anthropological Community gave up that illogical ad hominem decades ago. If you don’t believe me, I leave it to the curious Anthropology student to go look up the history of ‘going native’ in Anthropology. Anthro-geek that I am, I already know the answer you’ll find. Her dissertation IS a RELIABLE source by YOUR rules. The proper question here is: Is her dissertation a primary source or a secondary source by YOUR rules? How many cultures, tribes and peoples featured in your vast collection of articles are referenced with citations of Anthropology Papers focused on said society? I think I’ll start with the two Native American tribes local to our area, the Dakotah and the Anishinaabeg. If I understand correctly (and I hope not!) what some you are trying to say about primary and secondary sourcing that would lead to the irrational position that a Dakotah Anthropologist can’t research the Dakotah or an Anishanaabe Anthropologist can’t research the Ojibwe. That is not only a violation of Anthropological Scientific principle it would also be borderline racism! Now I also realize that peer reviewed Journals make better citations but the fact remains that even though the consilient reconciliation of the disciplines of Anthropology and Sociology are well under way it is still slow going. Anthropologists still rarely study industrial cultures and Sociologists still rarely study pre-industrial societies. Dr. Pizza is a pioneer in that respect but it makes peer reviewed journal citations harder to find. Fortunately Paganistan also has a Sociologist. Dr. Linda Green. I’ll have to give her a call. Rev. Jack Green ( talk ) 01:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Rev. Jack Green (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * General Comment & Additional references
 * Comment - I'm sorry, I'm having difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make. Are you for or against the proposed move to a more generic title on Paganism in the area?  I thought we had a good compromise here.   --RadioFan (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the point is here are more secondary references that Paganistan is in progressively wider and wider use over the last 20 YEARS and Wikipedia sourcing protocols appear deeply flawed when it comes to Anthropological and Sociological criteria. As to the move notion I don't consider it 'good', it is only 'better than deletion'. * Rev. Jack Green ( talk ) 03:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There seems to be sufficient argument for established media attention ('which media' is a silly argument, most articles on Wikipedia don't enter the mainstream press) and 'it's only a dissertation' is a fairly weak argument on the academic side. Whether the author of that source was part of the movement is plain irrelevant. Remember that all academic sources on Christianity before a certain date were Christians and pretty much all academic sources on atheism are from aetheists. The articles needs improvement - but that's not sufficient cause for deletion. Let's give it some TLC instead. I don't see a big problem with including a bit of contextual information in the name, though I'd encourage we keep a redirect since people are not necessarily going to be able to find an article that includes semantic fluff in its name. Disclosure: I'm a Wiccan. Not that it matters. - Rushyo  Talk  06:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The idea that material can be discarded because it was written by someone with an interest in the subject is so counter to the development of Wikipedia to date as to beggar belief. Who would imagine an article on physics or chemistry that rules out input from physicists or chemists? An article on books that rules out input from authors? An article on Christian theology that Christian theologians are forbidden from contributing to? Yet we have this idea in American society - and it is a false one - that those with close interest in a subject that is considered "fringe" can be discounted because they have a vested interest in it. African-American civil rights, LGBT rights, minority religions are just a few examples. There is no reason to discard Dr. Pizza's work just because she is part of the Pagan community. If anything, it is one of the few comprehensive studies of a community that often flies "under the radar" and is especially notable because of that. La Maupin (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment So much weight has been placed here on that thesis as a reference that it's received a lot of scrutiny. It doesn't match up to the scholarly merits it's being held up to after looking at how much it has been cited (zero).  We can also look at how widely the thesis is held by libraries to gauge its impact on academia. (one holding, at the university where the author earned her degree which likely holds all such publications as a mater of rule).  I dont think anyone is discarding Pizza's work simply because she is part of the community she is writing about but that fact is part of the bigger picture which is why that editor brought up in the first place. The idea that something is "especially notability" because she is a part of the community is similarly counter to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.  WP:RS tells us that a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper cautioning that Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.  This thesis has received no significant review outside of the process the author earned her PhD under,  It's not been featured in any scholarly journals, peer reviewed or otherwise.  There has been a lot of "find the word" mentioned, which is great but when scrutinizing they dont support the claim that the phrase is in wide use one book even identifies the word as being in use in "some" in the community.    In the end, if this thesis was widely cited, the article might not have been brought to AFD in the first place because there would be other references that could be drawn upon from outside the community, but that's not the case so here we are.  And again, no one here is discounting this community, the author of this thesis or the religion as a whole, the proposal on the table is to move the article to one on the community rather than the term.  All this adds up to a very notable community but a phrase that doesn't meet notability guidelines.  --RadioFan (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I just want to make sure that I am clearly understanding that what you are saying is that a scholarly reviewed Doctoral Dissertation by an anthropologist doesn't meet your standards. Jdoggiedogg (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I am glad that we are finally clarifying Wikipedia's stance on scholarly works but in the beginning of this discussion 2 of the earliest delete recommendations did make note of Murphy Pizza's interest in Paganism as part of their reasoning that her work was not a strong source. As to the question about whether the article should be listed under 'Paganistan' or under 'Paganism in Minnesota,' the references in the Star Tribune and on non-Pagan sites shows the term is expanding beyond the local community and people may want that term explained, not already knowing that it refers to Paganism in Minnesota.TeraRose (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment One of the reasons Dr. Pizza's dissertation has not been cited is that it is very new, only a couple of years old. It takes time for new work to filter through the scholastic community. Also TeraRose makes a point I've heard elsewhere. I therefore make a counter proposal. How about both. A 'Paganism in Minnesota' page that is more general and the more specific 'Paganistan' article. Rev. Jack Green  (talk)19:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This topic is not sufficiently notable to support 2 articles.  I will gladly support a section in an article on the larger subject (e.g. Paganism in Minnesota ).--RadioFan (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As I've already said, if the choice from On High is move or delete I choose move, but it's not my preference. Rev. Jack Green  (talk)20:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment (Hoping my formatting is correct for this - I really dislike the way these pages wind up jumbled; editing sectional replies would be much clearer, but that's a topic for different discussion.) Disclosure: I am a member of the Pagan community and have been since the early 1970s. As a term, Paganistan has a history dating back into the print days of the first run of Green Egg magazine, arguably the most important pagan publication of its time. As my copies are in storage, I cannot pull them to cite references; I no longer recall if Stephen Posch is the originator (as mentioned above), but as his involvement in paganism is roughly contemporary with mine, it is probable. As to notability itself, the term is mostly used as a self-referential descriptor, and as such, reported primarily by Pagan media such as podcasts, blogs and the like, which does not generally meet Wikipedia's standards, and herein lies the problem. I do understand Wikipedia's desire for mainstream media documentation in its articles, but mainstream media is changing how it does business as well. Here in the Seattle area, we had a long-running daily newspaper cease print publication, continuing the newspaper online; there are rumors that the NY Times may make a similar move. The Pagan Newswire Collective is attempting to become an reliable source of news for the collective Pagan community, wherever it is found, by feeding news and media to the rest of the world in the manner of the AP, UPI and similar organizations. If the AP/UPI, etc can be considered a reliable source, PNC should be afforded the same courtesy. I would strongly suggest that the article be retained, possibly as part of a larger article on regional pagan communities, either across the US or as a state-by-state series, if such is warranted. --HR Mitchell 21:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondancer (talk • contribs)

Comment - On Dr. Murphy Pizza - This is the presentation Dr Murphy presented at the America Academy of Religion http://www.aarweb.org/meetings/annual_meeting/past_and_future_meetings/2006/abstracts.asp A18-75 The Fourfold Goddess and the Undying God: Anatomies of Minnesotan Bootstrap Witchcraft Traditions Murph Pizza, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

“Paganistan” – the Minnesota Twin Cities NeoPagan community – emerged from being “Pagan flyover country” in the 1970s to become a flourishing community with a regionally unique, innovative, and evolving alliance of traditions. Self-started by impatient Midwestern occultists mining books, rather than awaiting transmission from a lineage holder, the process of Paganistan creating itself included cultivating an environment where critical engagement, creativity, and innovation are commonplace and accepted within the community. This project examines the Fourfold/Twyern Witchcraft traditions to demonstrate how religious innovations are negotiated within the community, and how their creation has contributed to the religious and cultural character of Paganistan.CaraSchulz (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz
 * Merge or Keep I've not been involved in a deletion vote before, so please bear with me. This is a very localized issue. But I wouldn't necessarily say that it isn't notable with regards to the Twin Cities community. The article itself is certainly in massive need of a cleanup, but I don't think it should be discarded outright. Therefore, if we decide that it isn't worth a stand alone article, I certainly think it could be merged with a Paganism in Minnesota article, as neopagans are certainly an important part of the demographic in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Just a comment that there have been some nice references especially books, added recently that will make for a great article on Paganism in the area. It's worth mentioned that those books dont mention the term "Paganistan" however. The only book referenced in the article that mentions the term is Clifton's which describes the term as in use by some in the community.   Interpretation of these references as supporting this term as being broadly used still seems like WP:SYNTHESIS.  Renaming the article Paganism in Minnesota still looks like the appropriate path here. RadioFan (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment So far I've counted eight sources which most people here should be able to agree meet Wikipedia's standards as reliable sources and mention or are about Paganistan: Dr. Pizza's Dissertation, " Paganistan: The emergence and persistence of a contemporary Pagan community in Minnesota's Twin Cities"; Dr. Pizza's contribution to "Sacred schisms: how religions divide"; Dr. Pizza's presentation to the American Academy of Religion; Chas Clifton's book, "Her Hidden Children: The Rise of Wicca And Paganism in America"; May 23, 1994 Star Tribune article "Pagans seek respect and a place to call their own"; October 31, 1992 Star Tribune article "Witches and pagans gather for a special New Year's Eve"; April 9, 2011 Star Tribune article "Wiccan prisoner sues, claims bias"; April 2009, Minnesota Monthly article "Welcome to Paganistan". Also, a simple Google search finds a great many references to Paganistan. There is a preponderance of evidence that Paganistan is notable and the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources.Jdoggiedogg (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't a game of find the name mentioned in Google. All the discussion above along with the sum total of the coverage will be considered by the closing admin tomorrow.  Looking at you summary above...
 * Pizza's dissertation is an issolated one which has not been cited by anyone, The paper has a scholarly index of 0 and has not entered the academic discourse and does not meet WP:RS as a result which also cautions us to not place WP:UNDUE weight on single studies in such fields
 * Chas Clifton's book clearly identifies the term as being in limited use within the community
 * The Star Tribune articles make passing mention of the term and are focused on specific events and issues involving Pagans in the area.
 * The Minnesota Monthly article is a 2 paragraph puff piece.
 * The WP:Search engine test doesn't help establish notability here.
 * So we have a dissertation, 1 book that doesn't even support the term as being in common use and a couple of passing mentions in the newspaper and some Google hits. I think sufficient references are available for the overall subject of Paganism in area so that a very well written article can be produced.  This discussion has grown with multiple points of view coming into play, has moved from a majority calling for delete to a compromise of a name change but has now become rather circular with a number of editors insisting on retaining the title.  Retaining the title "Paganistan" violates WP:UNDUE IMHO.  Does it help that anyone who searches on the title "Paganistan" will be redirected to the section on the phrase in Paganism in Minnesota or is it "Paganistan" or nothing?--RadioFan (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes the redirect helps. The use of Paganistan for the region is spreading faster among pagans generally than among mundanes, cowans or 'muggles' - non pagans. I will reluctantly accept 'Paganism in Minnesota' and work from there. I'm glad you appreciate the references we have found. We are digging up more. Rev. Jack Green  ( talk ) 20:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment So far, no decision has been announced about the the article Paganistan. Opinions have been expressed that articles referenced should be adequate references. Conversely opinions have been expressed that articles referenced should not be appropriate references. If the decision is made that the Paganistan listing does not meet the Wikipedia standards, then an article will be written about Paganism in Minnesota. However, at this point, the issue is Paganistan, and an attempt is being made to stay focused on the issue. As Dr. Pizza noted, Paganistan is a distinct community with its own history, customs, culture, values and identity. She also noted that the term Paganistan was in common usage when she began her study. Given the scholarly study of this community, and the references to Paganistan in other media, it is still my belief that Paganistan is notable and worthy of an article in Wikipedia.Jdoggiedogg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment I stick to my original dissertation that the content of the Paganistan is certainly notable and of local importance to the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, as its large populace of various pagan groups is certainly an unusual demographic. However, the Paganistan in its current form, in my opinion, read more like a magazine column than it does something that is encyclopedic. Does this mean it isn't notable? Not necessarily, but the article itself specifically needs lots of copyediting to make it read more like an encyclopedia article and less like a magazine column. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion. Forgive me if this was mentioned already above, but perhaps we can agree that the topic of the Neopagans community in the Twin Cities region is notable, but the term "Paganistan" is not notable. That being the case, perhaps we can move the article to Neopagans community in the Twin Cities region, leaving "Paganistan" a redirect to said article.-- Pink Bull  13:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Since apparently points were missed, I'd like to go through and quickly summarize. Despite efforts to downplay its significance, Dr. Pizza's dissertation on Paganistan does satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. In it, Dr. Pizza describes Paganistan as having its own history, customs, culture, values and identity. Concerning notability, aside from Dr. Pizza's dissertation, there was the April 2009, Minnesota Monthly article "Welcome to Paganistan", both of which are significant coverage in reliable sources as described in the General notability guideline. Concerning neologism, there are mainstream references to Paganistan dating back to 1992, and on page 4 of Dr. Pizza's dissertation she clearly says that the term was in common usage when she began her study. Despite this, if it is decided that the entry for Paganistan is not worthy of a Wikipedia listing, work will be done to develop an entry for Paganism in Minnesota.Jdoggiedogg (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 27 May 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.