Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagaian Cosmology: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:25, 1 February 2007

Revision as of 01:29, 1 February 2007

Line 18:

::*(by Elizabeth Cain, Jungian Psychotherapist and Spiritual Counsellor) and Pagan journal The Crossroads, Issue 3, Litha 2005<br />

::Glenys and her work are well respected among members of the goddess spirituality network within Australia.[[User:Wordsarewonderful]]|[[User talk:Wordsarewonderful|(talk)]]--[[User:Wordsarewonderful|waw]] 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::::* '''AfD etiquette:'''If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else. Signed [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] 14:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::::* '''Comment''' I am the author, Glenys Livingstone, and I am sorry if I have done something wrong in the procedure as I gather I have by the warning above, but by what was said here about "your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once," I understood that it '''was''' a ballot - and particularly so on this page. Please explain. I thought then that the discussion was really happening on talk pages elsewhere - which is where I have posted my comments thus far, and waiting dutifully to come to this page only once and "vote" as we were apparently being told to do. So can you please clarify what is correct? I thought it was ''encouraged'' to alert people who might care about the outcome of ths AFD to come here and support it, and also to edit the topic itself, as I have encouraged them to do. Like me most I know need encouragement to come to this auspicious site and edit or say ''anything'' ... in case it is ''wrong'' or feeling like they don't have "clout" and don't bother.[[User:Pagaian|Pagaian]] 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

::**Glenys, perhaps I can clear up some of these issues for you. When most people hear the word "vote", what they think it means is "oh, each person comes by, casts a 'ballot' for one of the choices, and then an answer is calculated solely from the totals of the ballots." A deletion discussion is definitely ''not'' a vote in that sense, because the answer is ''not'' calculated solely from the totals of the ballots. The totals of the ballots will be a ''factor'' in the decision made by the admin who closes the discussion -- but other factors include how well those who support a particular fate for the article support their argument with reference to deletion policy, and how much reason we have to think that the opinion of someone who supports a particular fate for the article is an educated opinion based on a real understanding of Wikipedia's goals and its standards. I couldn't begin to count the deletion discussions, for example, where a horde of people showed up to assure us "X is good! X is great! X is wonderful!" which had absolutely ''no'' effect in their favor because it showed that they didn't understand the ''real'' crux of the issue was not "is X good?" but "is X already notable, or only expecting to ''become'' notable? is there enough reliable information from trustworthy sources to write about X or are we only getting a few opinions, all from parties with personal stakes in how X is presented?" That is why, if someone who we've never seen on Wikipedia before comes in and makes a good argument, not only valid but sound, about how the article on X fits Wikipedia's criteria and should be kept, it ''will'' have an effect on the outcome, whereas if someone who never showed interest in Wikipedia before this deletion discussion shows up and says nothing but "I think this article should be kept" it's not going to have much effect at all. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::::* '''Comment''' - Glenys Livingstone again. Should I direct people to where they may find my response so they can comment? or is that just for Wiki editors ? and Question again, when I click on my signature at the end of these posts, it takes me to a place that says there is no user page by the name pagaian. I don't understand how people can easily find my talk page then - which does actually exist here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pagaian].[[User:Pagaian|Pagaian]] 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::* To answer the first question, no, you should not and [http://pagaian.org/news/pagaian-cosmologywikipedia this] may be the reason for the warning above, although I'm willing to assume you did not know you were doing anything wrong and that it is a simple mistake. Whether an article should be kept or note is generally based on certain longstanding policies and guidelines, and especially the [[WP:N|notability]] guidelines. It does not really matter how much "clout" you have or how many people you can bring to a debate. It's the arguments that count. Editors can make multiple comments, but should only put forth one '''delete''' or '''keep'''. Also, if you have a [[WP:COI|conflict-of-interest]] in the subject matter (as you very definitely do here) it may annoy some editors if you are seen as actively campaigning for the article and cause them to view the article as [[WP:VSCA|vanispamicruftisement]]. (Now there's a neologism!) [[User:JChap2007|JChap2007]] 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::::P.S. You can create a userpage by clicking on your username, entering text in the box and hitting save. [[User:JChap2007|JChap2007]] 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' I looked for references and everything I found was on the topic was tied directly to the author of the single book on the subject. [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] 05:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''Retain''' I object to the deletion of the article on ‘PaGaian Cosmology’ because it meets Wiki’s three cardinal content policies. It has been written from a neutral point of view, representing its views fairly and without bias, it has been researched, reviewed and published by a substantial number of reliable secondary sources and does not contain any unpublished material. The word PaGaian is well defined within the article as a unique synthesis of two well known words ie ‘pagan’ and ‘Gaia’, which in my opinion rules out any need to define it as a ‘neologism’. The book is based on 30 years of research and development involving many participating groups and is an outcome of the author’s doctoral thesis. The book ''PaGaian Cosmology – Re-inventing Earth-based Goddess Religion'' published by iUniverse, Inc in 2005 ''''''together with numerous independent reviews''', is made freely available via a creative commons licence at [http://pagaian.org] an open source website that is increasingly attracting notice with a total of 11404 hits and 4261visits within the past five months. [[User:Malpagaia|Malpagaia]] 12:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)