Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Natib Qadish (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  speedy delete by  as P2. (NAC) Sir Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  11:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Natib Qadish


The parent entry fails WP:N and is now at AfD. This portal should not exist. Griswaldo (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: The parent article was deleted by unanimous vote three years ago [], and the current reincarnation is in the process with the same results so far []. Pure self-promoting OR of a clearly non-notable religious "movement". The sources provided are misused in that they refer to an ancient religious concept, and not to the subject of the present article, which is a modern recreation. Nothing on Google except the movements own website. Zero independent coverage of any kind. In fact, zero evidence of any kind whatsoever that the movement has any following except for the creator of the website. Clearly fails notability requirements, and there is no hope that adequate sourcing will ever be found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above. The AFD so far is likely to result in deletion. User:Camocon/Portal:Natib Qadish is the same content and should also be deleted. MER-C 13:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Klein zach  01:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can't find it on Google? Try Bing. http://www.bing.com/search?q=Natib+Qadish&form=APMCS1 There seems to be a book written about it; http://www.amazon.com/Whisper-Stone-Qadish-Canaanite-Religion/dp/1846941903. I hate to see anything deleted because the subject is esoteric or unpopular. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And tell me which of those sources are reliable? They all look like self-published unreliable things. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Tess Dawson will soon publish her third book on the ancient Canaanite religion and Natib Qadish (it's modern reincarnation). Natib Qadish has been featured in numerous Neopagan Websites and publications. But still you claim that there's no reliable sources to be found. Apparently, this religion needs to be kosher approved by a rabbi, or blessed by the pope himself. What kind of "reliable sources" are you looking for? --Camocon (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP Here's some established websites (some with publications) that feature Tess Dawson, author of the first book on Natib Qadish, and leading spokesperson for the religion. Bye the way, I'm a man that lives in the Pacific Northwest, and Tess Dawson is a woman that lives in California. --Camocon (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Patheos: Interview with Tess Dawson: Qadish and author of Whisper of Stone
 * Democratic Underground: Interview with Tess Dawson, Canaanite pagan, part I
 * Deeper Down The Rabbit Hole: Guest Tess Dawson covers the Canaanite religion, including her book on Canaanite magic
 * Pagan Writers Community: Featured Author Interview – Tess Dawson
 * Witches&Pagans #19 - The Faerie Issue
 * Karagan Griffith from www.WitchTalkShow.com interviews Tess Dawson (video) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camocon (talk • contribs) 21:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All of these sources derive 100% of their information on the movement from Tess Dawson herself. There is zero investigative reporting, and absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that any of them conducts any fact checking. All of those sources combined could be used to source only that Tess Dawson wrote a book about the movement, and possibly that she is a known figure in the occult community (even that would be pushing it). They cannot even be used to source Dawson's statement that the movement has any other members besides her (and possibly her cat). Dawson's statement that there are other members is unreliable to the extreme, and even if we take her at her word, there is no indication that the movement has enough members to establish notability in accordance with WP:NOTE. The only source that contains any appreciable amount of material not derived solely from Dawson her self is the first one. And even that source clearly states that all she had heard about the movement were "vague rumors" and that she had never met a member of the movement before. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the "group's" notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's 276 members in the Natib Qadish yahoo group, and I'm one of them. Let me guess... that's not enough for you and your cronies. It's ok to bully a small religion that doesn't have a large following, because you can get away with it. Whose going to take sides with "baal worshippers" that are generally not accepted by mainstream pagans? Lets just edit them out like the Levites did Asherah (Athirat), and keep the Abrahamic faiths in good standing. We don't want anyone to discover the biggest plagiary in recorded history. --Camocon (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Camocon please familiarize yourself with our policies and please assume good faith of other editors. Wikipedia does not cover every piece of information out there. We have policies about notability and in those policies you'll see that reliable sources are required to establish notability. Please follow the links and read up on the policies. This has nothing to do with religious persecution, and everything to do with keeping our standards. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

@Dougweller: You're trying to minimize Natib Qadish by calling it 'very tiny', like a slave owner calling a black man a boy. I said it was a small religion, meaning- in contrast to the Abrahamic faiths, and mainstream Neopagan groups. There's a lot of religious sects in the world with less than 300 members, so the size of the religion is not the issue here. As for the 'biggest plagiary', I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. This is not a place for religious debate, so I'm not going to respond to that here. --Camocon (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC) @Dominus Vobisdu: The "vague rumors" you alluded to was actually said by Galina Krasskova in her opening dialog, before the Tess Dawson interview. Galina Krasskova said- "A few years ago, I began hearing vague references to a Reconstructionist Paganism that focused on the Canaanite and Phoenician Deities". Apparently, you didn't read past the first sentence. You said- "Dawson's statement that the movement has any other members besides her (and possibly her cat)". That misquote of yours about Tess Dawson is highly misleading, because she never said anything about her (and her cat) being the only followers of Natib Qadish. You are twisting the truth to fit your own agenda. --Camocon (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per the current consensus at Articles for deletion/Natib Qadish (2nd nomination) that Natib Qadish does not pass the notability guidelines. A portal for a non-notable topic is untenable. Cunard (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The group doesn't seem to meet our criteria of notability, and Comocon has pointd out that the Yahoo group is a tiny one and the religion 'small', which seems further evidence that the group doesn't pass our notability standards and probably doesn't even merit a mention in any relevant articles. (What does 'plagiary' mean here, by the way?)Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A portal presumes that it opens out into a wider space beyond. While I can quite see the rationale (although not personally the need) for portals on bigger topics, I can see no justification for this one. The article itself, if the subject is notable, should be plenty enough space to say all that is to be said on this topic. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  22:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * delete Seems to do nothing more than duplicate a small part of the (apparently soon to be deleted) main page. No reason for a portal for a one-article subject anyway. Mangoe (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete subject of the portal is not notable, and even if it was notable there are not enough articles to sustain a portal on this topic. Portal guidelines suggests that one section of the portal should have about 20 articles populating it. Right now we have one article within the scope of this portal and very soon we will have zero. The portal doesn't contain any substantive content apart from one paragraph duplicated from the article. Hut 8.5 14:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Why didn't anyone think to tag this for P2? There are fewer than three non-stub articles on the content. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:42, 18 October 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.