WP:Articles for deletion/Sabbatic Witchcraft

:{{la|Sabbatic Witchcraft}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabbatic Witchcraft}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Sabbatic Witchcraft}})

This does not seem notable as distinct from the claimed originator of the term, Andrew D. Chumbley. I note the debate on the talk p. about what term best describes his practices, this or "Sabbatic Craft" . I do not consider either a suitable redirect, given the assertions that they may not be specific. (Though I accept Chumbley is borderline notable, the article on him seems disproportionate to his importance.) DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: in reference to the Cultus Sabbati, it would be "Sabbatic Craft", thus the non–identical name, and also at Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic, (presumably).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Request:Unless there are any objections based on WP:REDIRECT and what I've explained below, I propose this discussion should be moved to WP:RFD (redirects for discussion). This is an undeveloped 3 week old stub undergoing an AfD.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Andrew D. Chumbley. Yworo (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - I couldn't find any reliable sources covering this term and if there's debate over whether the term is even applicable then it definitely doesn't need an article. Sources don't appear to support notability at this time. If it's decided that it's an applicable term then it should perhaps be merged. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable even to those who study these things, and without wishing to get into an argument about the title of a non-notable product, I would be very surprised if one could turn up a writer on the subject of witchcraft who would refer to the Cultus Sabbati as such.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:I should probably clarify that comment...but arguing about flavours of Tradition is not for this AfD :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC) (who fluffs no bunnies)

::Re User:Elen of the Roads: Because I used the word "flavor" you're not going to clarify? What, exactly, would you say this AfD is for? It's become rather unclear... Astonishing you're calling someone a fluffy bunny? Please clarify whom.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I can confirm that the remark was not directed at anyone in this AfD, but was apropos of sources. I think in this case your sensitivities are probably not my problem, but I did not intend to disturb you and shall make no more references to cuddly toys or emo bands in your presence.(<-that was me --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC))

::::Re: Didn't notice your reply here too (no sig).

::::Now now, my sensitivities have nothing to do with fluffy bunny being insulting... but if you'd be so kind as to review my last reply, and thoughtfully clarify your !vote, I really would appreciate it. Thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::What part of "delete: Not notable" do you want clarifying? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::Re User:Elen of the Roads: Frankly, I don't understand the part that fails to address WP:R, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. No reply is necessary.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic with redirect. Doubtful it's notable enough to stand on its own, but safe to say it warrants inclusion in the larger context of Traditional Witchcraft. Per the article's creator, it wasn't supposed to be about either Chumbley or the Cultus Sabbati... so in accordance, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultus_Sabbati&diff=387170955&oldid=383695744 changed] the Cultus Sabbati redirect to point to Andrew D. Chumbley.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:*Redirect: Just the redirect... hardly qualifies as a merge... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, wrong name, and the material already is on the Chumbley page. Question: I don't seem to be understanding the post above. Why is there a Cultus Sabbati page that is merely a redirect to the Chumbley page? Lulubyrd (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:*Comment:{{anchor|RfD}}

::The redirect automatically sends searches or requests for "Cultus Sabbati" to the Chumbley article instead. I hope a redirect to Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Current would be of no concern for "Sabbatic Witchcraft"...

::Using Google hits as an estimate, for every 10 requests/searches for one of the two terms, we might expect 6 to be "Sabbatic Craft" and 4 to be "Sabbatic Witchcraft":

::

::As I've indicated in detail on the article's talk page, Chumbley stated that "Sabbatic Craft" is a proprietary term applicable to associates of the Cultus Sabbati only. He suggested "Sabbatic Current" for public use but the public doesn't use it (for whatever reason). Instead, people use "Sabbatic Craft", "Sabbatic Witchcraft", and sometimes even "Cultis Sabbati" (though rarely). Both "Sabbatic Craft" and "Sabbatic Witchcraft" should redirect to the Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic section, which I've changed to "Sabbatic Current" (and anchored "Sabbatic" etc. too). I've explained the distinctions using the source from the article's talk page, (the interview in The Cauldron) and generally expanded it. I've also incorporated the 2009 material that was removed from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contemporary_witchcraft&diff=384862413&oldid=381645326 Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Witchcraft] two weeks ago.

::I don't expect many respondents will read the talk page or note that this article stub has simply got off to a slow start (WP:DEADLINE), but User:DGG's and User:Lulubyrd's comparisons of the 4 humble sentences written thus far to the Chumbley article aren't entirely accurate, (try finding "Via Tortuosa" for example). More importantly, the Chumbley article does not duplicate the stated intention of this stub, which is to address non–Cultus Sabbati practitioners, (top of the talk page).

:::Sorry User:DGG, that was just on your user talk, not here.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

::The talk got bogged down with a discussion of the title, but there's much less to worry about in terms of WP:REDIRECT, (as opposed to a WP:TITLE).

::Regarding User:DGG's premises, the talk page discussion was most emphatically not about the best term for Chumbley's practices, and I don't see how such mistaken "assertions that they may not be specific" would lead you to believe this is not a suitable redirect. About 4 in 10 users can realistically be expected to search on "Sabbatic Witchcraft" rather than "Sabbatic Craft", so if any issues regarding WP:REDIRECT have not been addressed, I'd prefer the discussion to take place in the RfD forum. Also, I can't find a guideline for calculating kilobytes from notability, how notable is 20K of thoroughly referenced wikitext?

::Although I wish there were a better option than redirecting Cultus Sabbati to Andrew D. Chumbley, it doesn't seem appropriate to redirect a specific group to Contemporary witchcraft, even though information about what the group practices, (as well as some of their influences and associates), still comprise the bulk of this sub–genre of Traditional Witchcraft. However, I don't think the sub–genre should be treated differently or isolated from the rest of Contemporary witchcraft, where it's been listed since 2009.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe Cultus Sabbati is also the name of a goth band. I suspect they are even less notable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

:*Re User:Elen of the Roads: Please don't make sarcastic comments here. There's no call for it. Are you not an admin? A relevant, civil and thoughtful contribution to the discussion, grounded in policy and guidelines, would have been very welcome. This AfD has become absurd, there's no reason to forbid a redirect, so please just close it as a redirect and we can all go have our wiki fun, thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

::[http://cultussabbati.org/ Cultus Sabbati the goth band]. I believe this fails WP:MUSIC (so we are not in danger of requiring disambiguation between this and Cultus Sabbati which currently redirects to Andrew D. Chumbley, the reason I mentioned it), even more badly that in my opinion the topic of this AfD fails WP:GNG. Your view may vary. Mine will vary if you (replace with a person who wishes to retain the stand alone article) find substantial references to the subject in reliable third party sources - so far I've only found forums and websites relating to Cultus Sabbati, and none of the books in my possession refer to the subject. And what on earth makes you think I'm an admin? Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

::::Cool, thanks! And thanks for letting me know what I'm trying to say about the redirect reads clearly enough. I was hard to know for sure without a second set of eyes. Much appreciated.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

:::OK, Cultus Sabbati the goth band won't be an issue, fair enough. My fault for having mentioned Cultus Sabbati the redirect. The topic of this AfD is what, exactly, if not the existence of a redirect from "Sabbatic Witchcraft" to Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Current? (If it's about a 3 week old undeveloped stub, close this AfD per WP:DEADLINE and prod it so I can change it to a redirect right now).

:::From "In a nutshell" on the General Notability Guideline WP:GNG: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." I urge you to refer to WP:R, the guideline on Redirects instead, (which I've addressed at some length). If you feel the contemporary witchcraft article lacks "substantial references to the subject in reliable third party sources", or that the sourcing of my recent edits to the page fail WP:RS in the context of that topic, the appropriate forum would be that article's talk page.

:::You're welcome to your own opinions, of course, but I've said I doubt (a fully developed article) would even meet the notability requirement. Yet, you say "my view my vary", by which I take it you meant "my view may differ", (I believe I've been consistent), and although our opinions regarding notability may differ in degree, it's not fair to imply we disagree. The other paragraph I was responding to, the one that capriciously refuses to clarify your delete !vote, strongly implies a polemic stance against my view (and that's assuming good faith about "flavor" and fluffy bunny not implying you find me annoying, intractable, and oblivious to my total ignorance of witchcraft). I should thank you for acknowledging the !vote needed clarification, you're the only one who has done. And sorry, my mistake, I forget why I thought you might be an admin.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

::::Machine elf, your anxieties - ?about what kind of witch people perceive you as? - are getting in the way here. "Your view may vary" is standard internet speak for "I am only speaking for myself here." I am not particularly concerned with your view, I am only stating mine. You must form your own view. I take the view that it is not notable, and that editors will not find reliable third party sources that discuss this topic, such as are required to verify content and demonstrate notability. I have stated this above, I see no reason to clarify further at this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::That crosses the line once again User:Elen of the Roads. This has nothing to do with my perceptions, WP:NPA. This is English Wikipedia, not "internet speak" Wikipedia. I fail to how the remark wasn't patronizing and vapid based this explanation, perhaps that's exactly what it was.

:::::Why are you commenting on the notability of my view? It's not an AfD on Machine Elf's view. A view, I'll repeat, that is effectively the same as yours on the question of a "Sabbatic Witchcraft" article's notability. We don't have that article however, we have a tiny stub. A stub that no one is suggesting we should keep because it's ludicrous to pretend that's on the table. However, if it's turned into a redirect, it does not need to meet those impossible requirements.

:::::Unlike the ad hominem attacks and repeated claims of exhaustively researching WP:RS, I've offered a reasonable demonstration that we should expect a large minority of the users looking for "Sabbatic Craft" to search for the misnomer "Sabbatic Witchcraft". As a simple courtesy, those users should be sent to Contemporary witchcraft where a "Sabbatic Witchcraft" section has existed since 2009.

:::::Again, I ask someone to please send this to redirects for discussion or simply close it as redirect based on what I've explained. Thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

But Machine Elf--that doesn't seem to be the consensus.Lulubyrd (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

:Then I'll use a different redirect. Wikipedia is only too happy not to return Create new Sabbatic witchcraft article.

:By the way, when you deleted most of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contemporary_witchcraft&diff=384862413&oldid=381645326 Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Witchcraft], because the quotes were allegedly unverifiable, you could have just referenced An Interview with Andrew Chumbly in The Cauldron.

:Or just tag it: {{citation broken}}{{citation broken}} —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

: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.