This article was nominated for deletion on 12 September 2023. The result of the discussion was merge. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Celtic reconstructionism redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Celtic reconstructionism was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The Further reading section looks rather promotional. It also includes many of the cited references, which it shouldn't, as well as further reading that belongs on other existing articles. Skyerise ( talk) 14:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
This article was created in 2005 by
Pigman who
changed his user name to
Mark Ironie in 2017. He and
CorbieVreccan, who was
Kathryn NicDhàna until she
changed her username in 2014 are the top 2 editors of this article. There are two mentions of Kathryn NicDhàna in the body of the article plus 5 works which she authored or co-authored cited in the article. There are 25 citations to those works. In addition there is an "interview" with Kathryn NicDhàna cited 4 times. In User:Kathryn NicDhàna's RfA
here, she said At the time I began working on it, I was not mentioned in [this] article, and it had not occurred to me that I ever would be. But as the article expanded I wound up being briefly mentioned, and some of my work in the field is now cited in the sources.
The COI has been discussed on the talk page (see archive) but Pigman ensured that no action was taken as a result.
There is now an AN thread which has highlighted significant WP:MEAT and WP:INVOLVED concerns regarding Pigman/Mark Ironie and Kathryn NicDhàna/CorbieVreccan tag teaming. Having looked at the history of this article, I've identified that every citation and every reference to Kathryn NicDhàna has been added by either Pigman/Mark Ironie or Kathryn NicDhàna/CorbieVreccan. Details are as follows (with a diff where the ref/citation was first added):
DeCausa ( talk) 14:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Currently a minor religion, barely capable of sustaining a Wikipedia article and beloved only by a handful of scholarly wannabes without advanced degrees, which surely invalidates any claim of recognized subject-matter expertise. The interview in Harvest is the only item actually published by an independent org, but as it's entirely an interview it's primary and non-independent.Honestly, the rest of the sources on this page don't look much better. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: there seems to be a similar problem at Celtic neopaganism. Skyerise ( talk) 16:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
At the time I began working on it, I was not mentioned in [this] article, and it had not occurred to me that I ever would be. But as the article expanded I wound up being briefly mentioned, and some of my work in the field is now cited in the sources.[1]. But you did add your name, you did it a few weeks after Pigman created the article and 4 days after you started editing the article. DeCausa ( talk) 20:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I believe the COI is resolved so I removed the COI tag I added when this all started. No need to draw attention to the matter and if the article should survive the AfD, I have no problem with just deleting and restarting this talk page once the move discussion is archived. Skyerise ( talk) 16:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 September 2023. The result of the discussion was merge. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Celtic reconstructionism redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Celtic reconstructionism was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The Further reading section looks rather promotional. It also includes many of the cited references, which it shouldn't, as well as further reading that belongs on other existing articles. Skyerise ( talk) 14:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
This article was created in 2005 by
Pigman who
changed his user name to
Mark Ironie in 2017. He and
CorbieVreccan, who was
Kathryn NicDhàna until she
changed her username in 2014 are the top 2 editors of this article. There are two mentions of Kathryn NicDhàna in the body of the article plus 5 works which she authored or co-authored cited in the article. There are 25 citations to those works. In addition there is an "interview" with Kathryn NicDhàna cited 4 times. In User:Kathryn NicDhàna's RfA
here, she said At the time I began working on it, I was not mentioned in [this] article, and it had not occurred to me that I ever would be. But as the article expanded I wound up being briefly mentioned, and some of my work in the field is now cited in the sources.
The COI has been discussed on the talk page (see archive) but Pigman ensured that no action was taken as a result.
There is now an AN thread which has highlighted significant WP:MEAT and WP:INVOLVED concerns regarding Pigman/Mark Ironie and Kathryn NicDhàna/CorbieVreccan tag teaming. Having looked at the history of this article, I've identified that every citation and every reference to Kathryn NicDhàna has been added by either Pigman/Mark Ironie or Kathryn NicDhàna/CorbieVreccan. Details are as follows (with a diff where the ref/citation was first added):
DeCausa ( talk) 14:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Currently a minor religion, barely capable of sustaining a Wikipedia article and beloved only by a handful of scholarly wannabes without advanced degrees, which surely invalidates any claim of recognized subject-matter expertise. The interview in Harvest is the only item actually published by an independent org, but as it's entirely an interview it's primary and non-independent.Honestly, the rest of the sources on this page don't look much better. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: there seems to be a similar problem at Celtic neopaganism. Skyerise ( talk) 16:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
At the time I began working on it, I was not mentioned in [this] article, and it had not occurred to me that I ever would be. But as the article expanded I wound up being briefly mentioned, and some of my work in the field is now cited in the sources.[1]. But you did add your name, you did it a few weeks after Pigman created the article and 4 days after you started editing the article. DeCausa ( talk) 20:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I believe the COI is resolved so I removed the COI tag I added when this all started. No need to draw attention to the matter and if the article should survive the AfD, I have no problem with just deleting and restarting this talk page once the move discussion is archived. Skyerise ( talk) 16:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)