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.
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.)
Merkinsmum22:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. IVENEVERHEARDOFIT is not a valid demonstration of non-notability. This is a clearly notable ritual with some importance within the Wiccan community.
RandomCritic02:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
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)
Edison18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)reply
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)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.