Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart

The edit wars over this article appear to be out of any kind of proportion to the subject's verifiable importance. With under a hundfred unique Googles and none which appear to meet the test of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent media of known authority, I'd say the importance tag which was the subject of the latest spat was more than justified. In fact, I see no credible evidence of importance at all here. Guy 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as the subject has changed her name several times over the course of her life, this search for Morning Glory Zell would be more accurate. It returns 82,900 hits. Also note that Morning Glory Ravenheart, her name before marrying Zell, returns 15,700 hits. -999 (Talk) 14:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those searches are invalid, because the names are not quoted they return all articles containing the word morning, glory and zell. Quoting the text gives 238 and 21 unique hits respectively - the 238 will include the zell-revenheart ones. Guy 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you may have a point, but I have to agree with 999. The search '"Morning Glory"+pagan' returns 39,300 Ghits. I've also added references to the article of mentions in such publications as Hinduism Today, Salon and Nerve, among others. She is notable. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further results: "Zell-Ravenheart" gets 34,900. "Zell-Ravenheart"+"Morning Glory" gets nearly 2000, and that doesn't include references to her as either "Morning Glory Zell" or "Morning Glory Ravenheart". Unfortunately, she tends to get mentioned only by first name in articles which refer to her husband, so restricting to the full name in quotes is not a fair test. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is well-known in the pagan community and is high-priestess of Church of All Worlds which was founded by high-priest Oberon Zell Ravenheart. The Church is certainly notable and has been written about by Margot Adler. Certainly the high-priestess of the church is as notable as its high-priest. -999 (Talk) 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pagan community would, then, appear to be too small to generate significant coverage. Where are the multiple independent non-trivial articles? Guy 15:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's discrimination. As I am sure you know, the notablity guidelines are guidelines. If a person is notable within their religion, they deserve an article. Otherwise I'm sure there are many minor figures important to Islam, Judaism, Bahai, Sikhism, etc. that should be removed, because you probably haven't heard of them either. Bah! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known neo-pagan, been written up in books by Margot Adler and Hans Holzer. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 999 and Smerdis of Tlön. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, prominent, nationally-known figure within the Neo-Pagan religious movement since the early 1970s. "...the importance tag which was the subject of the latest spat..." is the fruit of, yes, a spat, a fit thrown by one individual person who would appear to have negative intent. The tag should be removed and ignored. Davidkevin 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 999, Smerdis of Tlon, and Davidkevin. —Hanuman Das 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important figure in Neo-Paganism and a pioneer in the polyamory community as well. The fact that some people have not heard of her does not render her an unimportant figure within the Neo-Pagan community, which is itself a fast-growing segment of the US religious demographic. She is High Priestess of the Church of All Worlds, one of the earliest public Neo-Pagan organizations, and may have coined the term "polyamory." In fact, her article A Bouquet of Lovers is widely cited as one of the seminal works on the subject. "Non-notable?" It is to laugh! Septegram 13:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for reiterating some of the statements above. I'm still kinda new at this.

Septegram 13:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above-given reasons. Justin Eiler 00:40, 17 October 2006 (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.