Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witches in modern culture

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. W.marsh 20:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Witches in modern culture

A great article could be written on the subject, but this is not it. It isn't wiki-formatted, and it looks like it was cut-and-pasted from elsewhere. Finally, the "Books by Sybil Leek" section is clearly some sort of advertising-related abuse of the wiki. -Seth Mahoney 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting, It looks very like copyvio from somewhere, but the many Google hits on it are all various ebcyclopædic sites. Not a bad article at all, apart from the silly list of Sybil Leek publications. I vote weak keep though it needs a good deal of cleanup and verification that it's not a cut 'n' shut job promoting Silver Ravenwolf or somebody similar.Tonywalton  | Talk 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I really don't agree that it is well-written, but I'm also not the final authority on that. At the very least, if it is kept, it needs to be edited for NPOV, heavily sourced (with sources other than Sybil Leek), and a section needs to be added commenting on fundamentalist Christian witchcraft mythology. -Seth Mahoney 00:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. What happened here is that James P Sullivan (talk • contribs) cut a terribly-written section from Witchcraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), created this article and pasted the cut material into it. I notice that authorship history was lost in this. If this AfD results in a keep vote, GFDL history compliance needs to be sorted out. One day someone will write a Sybil Leek article and the bibliography might be handy, but most of the text here is very low-value. Jkelly 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like it can be improved, but Jkelly brings up an interesting point: what happens when articles are cannibalized, broken into smaller parts, Frankensteined vis-a-vis the GFDL? Happens on WP all the time... Carlossuarez46 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Delete the others have convinced me, particularly this adds little to Witchcraft. Carlossuarez46 21:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Questions that it may be worth asking are, will this article ever be cleaned up? Are there people currently interested in doing the work? If no to either, it may be better to just delete and leave a red link for that time when we have someone who is interested. -Seth Mahoney 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In theory, one should link to the diff / history of the article that one is forking in the very first edit summary of the new one. Jkelly 03:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, JKelly. Carlossuarez46 21:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was going to say "merge to Witchcraft," but since it's already in the edit history of that article ([1]), there's no need. The people working on that article can use it or not as they wish. If it doesn't even merit a section in Witchcraft, it certainly doesn't merit its own article - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:39, 11 February 2006 (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.