Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft and children

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 Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that this is a legitimate academic field. WilliamH (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Witchcraft and children

Witchcraft and children (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This synthesis from other sources appears to be original research and fails WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Interesting and sourced, but is it worth a separate entry? I have my doubts. Pundit|utter 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This is a valid academic subject, as evidenced by the references. Witchcraft is concerned with enough other things and needs development itself, so a merge would probably be counterproductive. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Aleta Sing 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is hardly a day old. There are plenty of potential sources out there. The topic is notable, not least of all because of the "in popular culture" section. The sourcing might be awfully hard to find online as a lot of medieval history and history of witchcraft is in books and journals, not online (though a shocking amount is online). Protonk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you Sources are located in books and not online. They were obtained at the San Diego State University library. tmsmom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmsmom (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    there are now sources on the talk page that you can get to if you are logged in at a university library. Should be better than encyclopedias. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sources added to article demonstrate that an encyclopedic article can be written on this subject. Nominator is encouraged in the future to, if you have notability concerns with an article, to tag it first instead sending it to AfD when it's 9 minutes old and still actively being edited. That's what the tags are for. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - subject appears to have plenty of notability. Aleta Sing 21:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A user that is using actual books! I love it! Keep it for sure. Blahblah5555 (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a very poor article that lacks sufficient references to support the connection. Yahel Guhan 23:06, 27 April 2008 (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.