Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fivefold kiss

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 Keep as 0 delete votes, 1 merge vote and not enough rationale for deletion. Non-admin closure.--JForget 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fivefold kiss

Fivefold kiss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable. TotesBoats 11:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. My googling indicates that this is a fairly well-known and significant ritual in Wiccan practice. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Per WP:JNN, "simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable". Dbromage [Talk] 11:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep No problems here - article needs tidying of course but the subject matter is encyclopedic and verifiable. Pedro |  Chat  12:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep verifiable from the published books about NeoPaganism, and a key point in published rituals.--Vidkun 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This definitely seems to satisfy WP:N. bwowen talk•contribs 15:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• ABSOLUTLEY KEEP! This is a very useful article that describes an important religious ceremony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.97.195 (talk) 19:27, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

• comment article writers/users admit with this redirect Fivefold kiss#The Term "Blessed Be" that as it stands this essay of speculation covers and merges two topics. At the very least that should be fixed. I suspect much of this is already in the Wicca article, at least the term 'blessed be'. It needs to not be in essay form and be mingling at least two subjects in an essay-like way. Or if it is going to cover two subjects, rename. I think this can all be in the Wicca article actually, despite how the wiccan fanboys feel. 'fivefold kiss' brings up a surprisingly low number of google hits (185 unique hits) considering the well-usedness of the rite. Also, this reads as WP:HOWTO as it gives all the words of the small rite. Maybe rename to call it 'blessed be', then including the two customs in one article would make more sense. 'Blessed be' has 829 unique hits. (i know the google test isn't perfect, but gives an idea of notability.)Merkinsmum 22:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. IVENEVERHEARDOFIT is not a valid demonstration of non-notability. This is a clearly notable ritual with some importance within the Wiccan community. RandomCritic 02:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Wicca unless multiple reliable sources are added to the article. A search of Google Books [1] suggests that the subject of the article is mentioned in a number of books. The keep arguments above are basically personal assertions of "I've heard of it" or "I personally know it is important" and like the article fail to provide multiple citations that are substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. There are online sources that are hard to judge, and a book citation lacking a cite to specific pages which document the ritual. Giving the editors who cited the book the benefit of the doubt that it is in the book and that the book is a source satisfying WP:RS, then it is still not "multiple." Advocates of keeping bear the burden of obtaining a few of the books shown in the Google Books search and improving the article. (edited to mention Google Books search)Edison 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment My keep argument was not in the least based on "I've heard of it". It looked like something out of Harry Potter when I first saw it at AFD. My Keep is based on a (fairly brief) bit of research that establishes it, as per my arguments above. Pedro |  Chat  19:41, 27 August 2007 (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.