Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthurian Wicca

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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arthurian Wicca

This alleged Wiccan Tradition does not seem to be notable. In fact, it does not seem to exist outside of being a phrase that refers to a school of thought within the Celtic Wicca group of traditions. I would also like to add 'patent nonsense' due to the lack of any apparent adherents of Arthurian Wicca as a religion rather than a school of thought, but the absence of evidence proves nothing, so... if anyone can provide evidence for this religion being in any way notable *as a religion*, or even existing beyond a few people, I am quite willing to listen. P.MacUidhir 00:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Nothing in the current article is verified, or easily verifiable. "Arthurian Wicca" gets 129 hits on Google [1]. Small, but notable, Wiccan traditions with little web presence get four or five times that [2] [3]. Of the Google hits, many of them seem to be referring to a book titled Morgan LaFey's Book of Spells. That said, I wouldn't want to see a precedent set whereby Wiccan traditions that exist mainly on the web get kept and Wiccan traditions that exist mainly in real life do not, but surely it is reasonable to expect some reference in Wikipedia articles to secondary, or failing that, primary sources. Jkelly 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on all points, and especially so on the point of setting that sort of precedent which you mention here. At the same time... if a particular tradition is notable, though without a significant Internet presence, it makes it difficult to know the extent and popularity of their tradition unless they happen to come to Wikipedia or know someone that does do so. Since Arthurian Wicca has exactly one proponent for the article, with a grand total of two edits to it, I am not particularly encouraged to give the benefit of the doubt and lend it credence. Since that same contributor is only an IP address, we also do not have the option of asking them to provide some background data (if it exists at all).--P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete as above. I've asked the people at Wicca if they think its notable. Banana04131 00:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: If it develops as a fully formed discipline with adherents and theology, then it can be a section of Wicca. If it gets as big as a phenomenon as Wicca, then it should have an article on it. At this point, it's just a term. Geogre 11:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. KillerChihuahua 15:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete per reasons above. PJM 05:01, 25 November 2005 (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.