Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Apple Branch
=[[The Apple Branch]]=
:{{la|The Apple Branch}} – (
:({{Find sources|The Apple Branch}})
A very minor, relatively recent, Wiccan group. I am unable to find any reliable sources discussing this group that would help establish any sort of notability. The only source present in the article is the group's official website, and doing the usual searches is giving me nothing that could be used to demonstrate notability. I'm only finding mentions of the group as a listing in directories of Wicca sects. Rorshacma (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as not reaching WP:GNG. Searches are hampered for me by 'the apple branch' being a common phrase but none the less, I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Uncertain but possible delete - Granted, Wiccan traditions are not going to appear through your average news sources and useful sources may not be available for the Internet and possibly kept to Wiccan members. However, Google Books found one relevant result for The Apple Branch [http://books.google.com/books?id=YPiuSQAACAAJ&dq=The+Apple+Branch+Wicca+Dianic&source=bl&ots=HorTah9U3O&sig=Vr6VYxyeTMWrPoOqetc9Y0uNrh0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EyxiUOrTJqXFyAHChIGACw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA here], but it never provides a preview. The article should be kept as it may be significant for Wiccans but it desperately needs attention from Wiccan experts. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:*A comment on that link, the book is from Books LLC, which merely pulls content from Wikipedia — Frankie (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
:*It's true that most Wiccan traditions lack citable coverage. Open traditions lost in a sea of traditions on one hand and secretive traditions avoiding attention on the other make things hard even with proper expert attention. Thankfully, Wikipedia does have established guidelines for such cases.
—Sowlos (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG by a mile. The single source mentioned by SwisterTwister is a Google book that "primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." First Light (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Move It clearly fails WP:GNG. Topics need 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' to be considered for stand-alone article coverage. However, 'Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.' The topic covered in The Apple Branch should be considered for inclusion in a new article dedicated to the topic of Wiccan traditions or in the traditions section of the already existing Contemporary Witchcraft article.
—Sowlos (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2012 (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.