Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gray witch

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 close due to being a procedural nightmare. Per request (and to try and get some real consensus on this) the articles will be re-nominated separately. Shereth 22:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gray witch

Original research. G2.0 USA ^{contributions} 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have nominated gray magic for deletion as well. Any consensus on this page is the consensus for both articles. --G2.0 USA ^{contributions} 23:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm researching and improving this article, so over time it won't be original research. If it is deleted i request that Gray Witch be added to the Request for articles Page. I'm also in need of people to help improve that article. I asure you if it doesn't get deleted it will be improve. If it is not deleted then I will improve it. In fact i'll start on it now. Thank you. --Condalence ( 14:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found, the article can be expanded, and original research is eliminated. It is a very short article. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:RS. Article amounts to what is basically original research. Gray magic should be included for the same reasons. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreement with nominator regarding original research concerns. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gray witch appears in the following texts: Spirit Of The Witch: Religion & Spirituality in Contemporary Witchcraft By Raven Grimassi, Wicca: The Complete Craft By D. J. Conway, Color Casting for Wiccans: Correspondences for More Powerful Spells by Sister Moon, and an inciteful blog (though probably fails WP:V). §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been included in Neopaganism deletion discussions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep It will be improved. Wikipedia needs an article on the subject. I did write reliable resources but they're in hidden text,like this . Plus, I don't see a need to delete it if someone else can improve it.(isn't that how wikipedia works?).--Condalence ] 23:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a quick tidy up of the references. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced original research. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As is, I just don't think it's Wikipedia material. Condalence, if you really feel that it can be improved to an acceptable level, I would recommend that you move this to a subpage of your userpage and work on it. When you've lengthened it, added something proving notability, and, most importantly, gotten some reliable sources, you can request that it be recreated. If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page! L'Aquatique[review] 23:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy Keep per User:GO-PCHS-NJROTC, this AFD is now invalid. L'Aqùatique[review] 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this AfD is listed twice. Not sure how to fix. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the other listing, do you have a url for it? We can just move the votes (gasp, cut and paste move!) over to whichever one is first. Unless you're saying that this AFD appears twice in the list of them. In which case you would just need to edit the list and remove the {{Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/1/2 Man}} string. L'Aquatique[review] 14:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (I think). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALERT! ALERT!: This AfD was initiated by a banned user! GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep because the AfD was initiated by a banned user. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep because references have been added. AFD was initiated by a banned user. --Condalence ] 06:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All delete !votes were concerned about sources, and they have been added. It didn't meet speedy keep because subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered. This would have been my closing rationale if I were able to close this out, yet I show restraint. — _Maggot^Syn 06:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: To closing admin: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gray magic redirects here. So this is a dual AfD (major mistake). — _Maggot^Syn 06:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To closing admin - this is a mess, for procedural and other reasons. Could you close this and open two separate AfDs instead? I think there are still some major OR issues to be addressed for both articles, but don't want to fall afoul of the procedural niceties. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 27 June 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.