Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Paths Center
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sacred Paths Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable organization lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article references are primarily blogs and other items that fail to support article meeting WP:RS criteria. Fails WP:ORG. ttonyb (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find any in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources, just a couple of passing mentions. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not seem to be independently notable. Could be redirected to Paganistan. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The problem with a redirect to Paganistan is that is a neologism seemingly used only by Twin Cities neo-paganists, and one of those folks wrote a thesis with that name. When reliable sources use the term, it is only in passing when looking for a colorful quote by people active in that community. There is no in-depth independent coverage of that topic in reliable sources that I have been able to find. Therefore, it is not a good redirect target. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the term DOES have a Wikipedia article. Does that article need to be looked at as well? --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The problem with a redirect to Paganistan is that is a neologism seemingly used only by Twin Cities neo-paganists, and one of those folks wrote a thesis with that name. When reliable sources use the term, it is only in passing when looking for a colorful quote by people active in that community. There is no in-depth independent coverage of that topic in reliable sources that I have been able to find. Therefore, it is not a good redirect target. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.