This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment. I'm not sure that Modern paganism is located at the correct title. Looking at the Google Ngrams it looks like "neopaganism" is much more common of a term. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, due to WP:PRECISION; and as I argue at Talk:Modern paganism#Requested move 24 March 2023, that title also should go back to "neo-paganism": there are "modern pagans" who are NOT "neo-pagans"... but these articles' topics are the latter. Also, concur with Rreagan007. – •Raven.talk 07:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency and per nom. The RM for Modern paganism was closed; it was not moved to "Neo...". — BarrelProof (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Alison. The article is currently full of OR and unsourced promotional info. Keeping it as is simply isn't an option. That said, if you think it merits a separate article and have time/sources to flesh it out, that would be an acceptable solution. If not I think blank-and-redirect is a good way to preserve the article's existence (and record of history) while not continuing to host un-encyclopedic content in contradiction with our policies. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that this article has been tagged as lack of sources since 2017 so I feel its reasonable to say that just leaving it and hoping it improves isn't working. A blank-and-redirect allows for any searchers to be sent to the main article, and if the Neopagan section gets developed enough it can be spun out into a separate article here. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment, sorry. @Dbachmann did exactly what I did way back in 2010, where it remained as a redirect until an IP reverted it in 2017. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's now significantly improved, with somewhat decent references. More tomorrow and over the weekend after I hit the books - Alisontalk 05:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Excellent editing, this is much stronger now. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]