Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natib Qadish

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 Delete --JForget 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natib Qadish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I tried researching this topic to add reliable sources to the article and give it a good reworking. I am generally interested in religion and this topic seemed quite fascinating. However, I was unable to find any reference to a group of this description; neither could I find any reference to a group of this name. I searched both Questia and a local university library. While the topic is nifty and interesting, apparently the sources do not exist to support an article at this time (i.e. non-notable). Vassyana (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Vassyana (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't exist anywhere on Google Books/Scholar/News Archive. All that is out there is the external links in the article -- self-published websites, forums, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research Yahel Guhan 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThe words do have meaning on their own, but together they constitute a concept that does appear quite original. Even if not true OR, it certainly is not notable. This area is an interest of mine, and I've never heard of it! To be on the safe side, I tried to look it up and confirmed Vassyana's findings.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whilst this page does need to be deleted, due to it's not following all the rules, having no reliable sources, would it not also be possible to mention it somewhere in the Canaanite religion article, and possibly include at least one of it's external links on that page, or in another article where it is mentionned?HS7 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I searched some local pagan shops, checked a few peoples' occult/neopagan book collections and shopped around online. I still could, sadly, not find any information about such a group (by description or name) except on the self-published sites. Vassyana (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did some digging, and the best I've been able to come up with so far is Magickal Judaism: Connecting Pagan and Jewish Practice by Jennifer Hunter, which I gather discusses it (although not under that name), but I don't yet have a copy with which to confirm. Most of what I get is discussion of the original religion, rather than the neopagan version, and the Natib Qadish community seem to be drawing on those sources - which is pretty much standard practice for many of the neopagan groups. I wouldn't expect much academic discussion, if any, on this topic, simply because smaller neopagan groups don't tend to draw academic attention. And thus I doubt that notability can be established. - Bilby (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academic mention isn't needed per se, or at least I do not believe so. If I could have found, (for example) at least a few Llewellyn and/or Weiser books about it, I would have instead revised the article per such sources. If you just include the mid-size occult, new age and neopagan publishers, they cover most variations of their subjects including smaller and specialist groups. Vassyana (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, I probably worded that badly. I don't see academic sources as necessary, but they're what I can search, so I focused (and commented) on them. And they would be suffcient. :) Llewellyn or other publishers would also be sufficient, but I can't check them myself )my own collection is small and somewhat too select), so that has to be up to someone else - I'll see if I can follow your example, though, and check the local shops. But if you had no luck, I suspect I won't either, unfortunately. - Bilby (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't it just be deleted now, and if anyone ever finds some sources to reference it with, it can be recreated? However, with the group 'drawing on the original religion' as mentinned above, doesn't that make them the same religion, with a different name?HS7 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As much as some reconstructionists would beg to differ, neopagan reconstructions are decidedly distinct from the historical religions. Vassyana (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All religions change though, I don't think I've ever come across any religion that has gone a few thousand years without changing, but they are still considered to be the same religion in spite of that.HS7 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I gave it a shot, but agree with the nom - it is difficult to find anything reliable as a source (with teh exception that there may be something in one work). Given, as the article states, they are reasonably young (even for a neopagan group), this isn't surprising. I considered suggesting a merge, but the information wouldn't fit with Neo-paganism, and while I could potentially see a place for it in Judeo-Paganism, the article itself suggests otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2008 (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.