Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Monaghan


 * 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 Snowball keep.  Royal broil  04:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Patricia Monaghan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Won a single, tiny award, the Puschcart Prize, which is actually given out hundreds of times a year and therefore not very significant. Recently deceased, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Appears on this Arbcom Black List of promotional articles created by notorious wikispammer Rosencomet, a WP:SPA who edits nearly exclusively to promote his financial interests in the Starwood Festival, by writing bogus articles about people who were vaguely associated with it. Qworty (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  14:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  14:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a misleading screed about me, personally, that should not distract you from the actual facts about this subject. Patricia Monaghan was a prominent author, recently deceased, who's Encyclopedia of Goddesses and Heroines is considered a classic in the field. She has written many books, published by major presses, and lectured all over the world. Patricia has published essays and articles in national and regional publications including The New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor. Her work has been featured in Best American Spiritual Writing and many other anthologies. She has been honored with a Pushcart Prize, the Paul Gruchow Nature Writing award, and the Friends of Literature award for poetry. In 2012 she was named the second lifetime honorary member of Celtic Women International (the first being the esteemed Irish novelist Morgan Lewellyn). I invite you to do a Google search or any other research you prefer to evaluate her notability for yourself. (And just for the record, I DO edit and create articles about subjects unrelated to Starwood, and I derive not one penny from that event or the organization that runs it.)Rosencomet (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep She has published a lot. It is not clear if any of it is important or makes her WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Why was Category:DePaul University faculty removed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP She does not fail the WP:AUTHOR. She is regarded an an important figure in the earth based spirituality movement, goddess movement, woman movement, and has been cited in books and literature by others see above by Rosencoment. She is know for significantly adding to the pathos of area in which she wrote. Many people today would not have the knowledge they do had her books not be published. With 15 books she has a collective body of work that has had multiple independent articles or reviews. I think only one of the 5 listed criteria are required to be considered notable. She was and still is highly regarded by her peers and those in the community. That someone who originally started the article did so for something that was deemed inappropriate, doesn't discount the work this woman created and shared with the community that is interested in the subject she wrote about. Again she had 15 publications. Still available in major book retailers. These publications are not self published, and therefore just a point of tooting someones own horn. She is a published author and as such deserves to have her page left on Wikipedia so those that come behind, read one of her books, can find a bit more information on this powerful woman who gave to us. Sampling that her peers do hold her in high regard:
 * * One of the leaders of the contemporary earth spirituality movement
 * * We are sad to mark the passing of Goddess scholar, poet, author, and women’s spirituality elder
 * * a pioneer in the contemporary women’s spirituality movement, and author
 * * Goddess movement pioneer, author, teacher, poet

WebWeaver64 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep (new rationale below) Every source currently in the article is primary or unreliable. See WP:42. Many of the comments in the links by WebWeaver64 appear to be made by associates with connections to the subject. She just died so naturally many of her associates (business and otherwise) will say great things in online personal blogs. "Pioneer in the contemporary women's spirituality movement" is a huge claim that needs big sources. Or is it "Goddess movement"? Everyone says something different, and intangible. As far as I can tell she wrote a lot of books, only 3 or 4 titles really sold much, but not even that much. Her best-selling book, The Goddess Path, had one professional book review, in Booklist (1999), which is not surprising since she was also a regular columnist at Booklist (ie. the source is not intellectually independent of the subject). The Pushcart Prize (2005) was one of 60 that year that won - many authors win Pushcart's year-after-year, but she only won once. A Google search of 'Paul Gruchow Award for Nature Writing' finds the only person to ever claim to win this award is Monaghan herself - does the award exist? There is no evidence she won the Friends of Literature Prize/Award. Celtic Women International is a small non-profit founded in Wisconsin the same state Monaghan is from; the other lifetime honorary member, Morgan Lewellyn, has business connections with Monaghan: her books are published by "Llewellyn Publications". I guess that doesn't count as "self-published" when one friend publishes the other friends books. She did publish one serious work, the 2-vol The Encyclopedia of Celtic Myth and Folklore by Facts on File, maybe it would be notable if there were professional books reviews, I can't find any. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Green Cardamon, I do not believe there is any connection between Morgan Llywelyn, the noted Irish author, and Llewellyn Publications (AKA Llewellyn Worldwide), perhaps the most prominent publisher in the fields of Magic, the Occult, Parapsychology and Paganism. I can find no evidence they even know each other (although I found an Amazon.com review of one of Llywelyn's books by Monaghan). Also, I think you might find more reviews of The Book of Goddesses and Heroines, just one of her better-known books, considered an important reference book in the field. Also, before you decide there is no Paul Gruchow Award, you might want to do I bit of research. You can start with his Wikipedia article.Rosencomet (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you for the clarification on Llywelyn vs Llywelyn. Your suggestion to search on Book of Goddesses led to an interesting reliable source in the Anchorage Daily News, added. I'll work on this more later, might change my vote if I can find more reliable sourcing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Found and added additional sources that are enough to suggest notability. (BTW the article said she won a Pushcart Prize for her book of poems, but that's not right, Pushcart's are for single poems or essays; her CV is online and confirms, but need reliable source.) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just want to point out a trend I've noticed in Qworty's articles for deletion. I noticed in an article on Stregheria that he warranted a warning from another editor for the demonstrated lack of civility in his entry there, and an even more pronounced lack of knowledge on the subject in question. Likewise, in this post, we see a barely veiled disdain for the subject mentioned. In this case, given his past entries and a demonstrated track record of bias in his nominations and comments, I think his motives need to be taken into consideration as well, since this is a subject he has already made his feelings clear on before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stregheria). This is becoming a pattern that verges on an attempt at discrimination.The1TrueBen (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Be careful of WP:BOOMERANG (like WP:SPA and WP:SOCK). My personal opinion Q has a 'direct' style, and we often disagree, but I support his right (anyone) to nominate articles for deletion, including any article that I wrote. That's how Wikipedia improves. But there are some nominators who abuse the system. One way admins look at cases like this is how many articles someone has nominated for deletion vs. how many of those ended up closing as "Delete". If the number of closed "Deletes" is less than, say, around %33 (to pick a rough guide) there is probably a valid case of a nominator out of control who needs reigning in. So you have to build a case using data and evidence, not just anecdotal complaints. Right now the AFD Stat Tool shows Q doing about average, so it might be difficult to get others to agree that Q's nominations are trending unjustified. He really does seem to be picking articles that consensus - more often than not - agrees should be deleted. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as per WP:AUTHOR. -Racklever (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP. The article needs a bit of work, but the author and her works are highly notable. Folklore1 (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP Patricia Monaghan is a relevant author to the three million wiccans and countless other pagans in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmberMoon612 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - as stated above she meets WP:CREATIVE being regarded as significant by her peers. I believe she also meets WP:GNG in any case. The sources (patheos and wildhunt) may be on an unusual subject, but they are reliable and significant sources in that subject area. Rosencommon is not 'a notorious wikispammer' and Qworty has been asked not to use this language againElen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Patricia Monaghan is an extremely well known author in the Pagan and Wiccan community. Removing her simply because she does not meet mainstream requirements of a "famous author" is just deplorable. Pagan Clergy (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to Green Cardamom's efforts which expanded her bibliography and added book reviews. Well Done GC!   Th e S te ve   08:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The request to delete this article appears to be part of a concerted attempt by Qworty to delete articles by specifically women who have been considered significant contributors to the larger Neo-Pagan/Witchcraft community.  Regardless of Qworty's personal views, proclivities or inclinations, each community is free to choose for itself who is considered a significant spokesperson. That there is a large Neo-Pagan/Witchcraft community present in the United States, Europe and internationally simply cannot be doubted. Numerous scholarly works have been written about this community including the now famous Drawing Down the Moon (Adler, new edition 2006) and The Triumph of the Moon (Hutton, 2001). Neo-Pagans and witches are definitely more than a few 'women leaping about naked in the woods,' (to paraphrase a Qworty image that has been circulating). I wrote about this community myself in my book New Religions (2005).  Patricia Monaghan's 15 published titles, several of which have won regional or subject based rewards and the constant presence of her texts in independent and specialty booksellers readily displays her importance to the larger Neo-Pagan community.  If they claim her as significant, then she is, regardless of relative size or demographic importance of that said community.  I write this as a non-Pagan who is interested in new religious movements, has a PhD in American Cultural Studies and who has studied Neo-Pagans, among others for over two decades.  Qworty can contact me directly if he/she really wants to debate the matter, I may be contacted via the Wikpedia email function.  In the meantime, while the article might benefit from some rewriting and reference sourcing, Monaghan's value to the Neo-Pagan/Witchcraft community cannot be doubted and the article should not be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WHAM09 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the 2-vol The Encyclopedia of Celtic Myth and Folklore by Facts on File, a major reference publisher. That's sufficient to shown notability as an author/expert in the field. I find it difficult to judge the other questions raised.  DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 19 November 2012 (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.