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. No references or assertion of notability, essentially a dicdef. No problem with recreating if sources are provided and notability established.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religio Romana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A Latin term meaning "Roman Religion" that this stub claims is also the name of a revisionist NeoPagan group. Was Prod'd then Deprod'd. Fails all sourceing policies such as WP:ATT, WP:RS and WP:V. It makes no assertion of notability and sources were produced on "Roman religion" it would then violate WP:SYN and WP:OR. Finally it fails the notability guidline for organizations. NeoFreak 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if sources that show the existence of this modern movement are provided. I'll try to find some. —Ashley Y 20:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question So delete as is? NeoFreak 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain as is. —Ashley Y 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you are Abstaining right now? NeoFreak 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this is a dicdef. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I fixed it up a little. What do you think? - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 06:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you added a bunch of unsourced and original research. I've removed it. NeoFreak 11:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like you aren't giving people a chance to clean this up. Finding references that meet attribution requirements takes some time, and it's starting to look like you are treating the article (and anyone trying to improve it) like a Whac-A-Mole.--Vidkun 13:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am trying to put up as much information/sourcing as I can find so that people can make a deletion decision based on more complete evidence. Note that I have not voted. The text I added is sourced from the articles linked. There is no original research here. I have also seen the religion mentioned in published books, I just don't happen to have any of them on my desk at the moment. I would go look them up for you, but I have work that needs to be done offline. Did you check to see whether the article was verifiable/notable before you nominated it for deletion? What did you turn up? - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you find attributable material then go ahead and add it. Adding material from unrealiable sources or just plain old unattributed material is not constructive in building an article. We already have articles on Roman religion and Roman mythology. There is no material here (or has there ever been) on a NeoPagan revisionst group that supports any reliable sources or that can be verified. If this article is deleted and you later find material about the NeoPagan group that is suitable for inclusion then start the article again, no good information is being lost. NeoFreak 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand that. Perhaps you would generate less antagonism if you would provide an explanation of why the sources are inadequate before deleting the information. Also, I believe that it is generally appropriate, when you come across unsourced text on Wikipedia, to make an attempt to source it before deleting it, and to accompany your deletion/deletion nom with an explanation of the avenues you pursued. There is a lot of verifiable information on Wikipedia that is just improperly sourced, so just the fact that the sources an article cites are inadequate isn't enough to justify deleting it. (The fact that the only information I can find on Religio Romana is self-published on the internet is enough, so delete. I can't find enough in books for a stub - it's not even mentioned in Which Witch is Which.) - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, it's not my intention to be antagonistic. I did try to find some sources but neither of us had any luck. I also explained why I made the reversions I did in my edit summaries. If you have any problems with my behaivor don't be afraid to address them with me on my talk page, I want to try and keep the discussion here on track. NeoFreak 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term "revisionist" in the nom, and the extremely aggressive behaviour of the nominator make me question whether this is in fact a good faith AfD. A quick glance at a few of the non-English wikipedias show that the entry is in need of a translation from another language, not deletion. - WeniWidiWiki 20:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the article should be kept on a character assement of myself instead of a review of relavent policy? Thanks for your opinion. NeoFreak 21:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am inferring that your aggressive demeanor indicates you are operating with some sort of agenda which overrides your judgment. Again, the group in question is not a primarily American (english speaking) group. - WeniWidiWiki 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aggresvie? Hmm, I'd agree with that, I treasure Wikipedia and I'm very aggressive in protecting it. Wether or not my aggressive efforts are "biased" and renders me incapable of nominating an article for deletion is up to debate I suppose. If you have other language wikipedia sources I'd love to see them. NeoFreak 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I am reluctant to delete any page for something which might be a religion, but the sourcing is very weak. if this in in the other WPs, then perhaps there are some sources there. But it did not help for various parties to delete the admittedly pathetic external links during the course of the AfD. I've restored them. If they lead to any real sources, the article should be kept. External link as such do not have to be independent RSs--links to an organization home page and so on are acceptable there. DGG 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links did in fact belong in the external links section (not a ref section) thanks for catching that and moving them over. I'm curious on what grounds that are rooted in policy you think this article in its current form should be kept. NeoFreak 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i said "weak" keep, I agree it is debatable, I certainly expect further sourcing. DGG 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You expect further sourcing for it to be kept yet you are advocating that it be kept in its current state? I'm afraid I don;t understand your position. NeoFreak 03:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. articles get improved at AfD. I will sometimes say either weak keep, but I'll change it if nothing more is added when challenged, or the opposite, Delete unless something comes in.--and so do other eds. It's not a matter of the !votes. The criterion is sourceable. I do not advocate deleting articles where the author hasn't found the material, just of deleting them if there appears to be no material to find. If this is real, I think it would be notable. Opinions about this can vary, and they do. DGG 05:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. You and I disagree on wether or not this subject sourcable I suppose. It can be confusing when an editor makes "conditional" stances in AfD. I find it best to discuss the article as is but that's just a personal preference I suppose. Thanks for clearing t up. NeoFreak 14:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No article contents, merely a def. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:37, 3 April 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.