Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Age communities

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 no consensus, default to keep. Dreadstar † 21:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Age communities

Does this list provide any notability? No reliable sources provided to prove that this is a big deal. Wizardman 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[ Note: The page appears to be a topic article, not a "List of..." The article seems to be in its beginning stages, and it does include a list, but it doesn't look like a list-only article; that difference may be of interest to editors commenting here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC) ][reply]

Delete without prejudice. While I generally tend towards the opinion that references are unnecessary in lists if the linked articles confirm that they belong, this does not seem to be the case here. Some actual discussion of why the various places qualify would be helpful. The "new age" label is rather vague in any case. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has usage of the term new age as far back as 1640. The recent usage seems about 50 years old and is well-understood. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... and, the recent usage goes back further - to 1894 beginning with the publication of The New Age - a journal of Christian liberalism and socialism, that later moved into modernism in art and philosophy. It featured writers including H. G. Wells, G. B. Shaw and others and addressed topics such as the role of private property and Women's suffrage. As far as how the term would apply with regard to any particular new age community, that would require referencing as with any topic of course. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too subjective for a list article. MrPrada (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity is not a reason to delete. All we require is NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has obvious merit which is confirmed by extensive sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists are not encyclopedic anyway. --PetraSchelm (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of lists. This article, on the other hand, is not called a list - it has just started out that way. There's no reason that prose cannot be added as I have started to do. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-noteability. archanamiya · talk 20:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and lack of objective inclusion criteria. Sedona? KleenupKrew (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sedona, Arizona#Vortices describes the New Age aspects. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sedona is not an intentional community. Plenty of people live there who are not New Agers. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the List of intentional communities. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article now cites a book and a scholarly paper on the subject, I'm not seeing how this topic can possible fail this guideline. Please clarify. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few of these may qualify as intentionally and explicitly New Age, but some others appear on the list largely because they are merely interesting to New Agers. Without a real scope this is just a random list subject to POV-pushing. Colonel Warden is right that specifically New Age communities have received some scholarly attention, and an article on those might be more worthwhile than a list. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think that this should not be that article? It is our clear policy that we should improve imperfect articles rather than deleting them. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New age communities exist . There has been a lot of serious research into them. This RFD makes no claim that they are not notable only that the article does not contain "...reliable sources provided to prove that this is a big deal. " This can be easily rectified. Not being a big deal is not itself a reason for deletion, as long as they have been noted . Such a weak case for RFD is itself POV pushing. The following scholarly book, found in a 5 min search , alone provides support for much of what is listed in the article.

The New Age Movement: The Celebration of the Self and the Sacralization of Modernity By Dr Paul Heelas Published 1996, Blackwell Publishing ISBN 0631193324 [1]Lumos3 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This has the potential of being a good spinoff of List of intentional communities, and the addition of sourcing seems to be a good start. For those of us who don't understand what makes these attractive to "New Age" planners or residents, some more context would be appreciated. Mandsford (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, and figure out how this overlaps (and possibly merge) with List_of_intentional_communities, Egalitarian_communities and more. There are references listed; the trouble is that "new age" is a fairly subjective label, and figuring out both what qualifies as a community and what qualifies as new age will be difficult. Making this definition could verge into original research, but for now the references seem ok. Does need clarification. -- Phoebe (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has (some) sources and is on its way to improvement. The idea of "New Age" communities has been around for a long time, and most of the places listed have been famous as such since the 1970s. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY this article has potential to be a very valuable list. It needs a bit more sourcing an a lot of work done to the list but as mentioned above it would work well with the other "community" lists. This article and the one provaided above already shows enough sourcing to legitimize it's existence.Earthdirt (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:N and WP:V with plenty of Google Books hits. Also - the article is not set up as a list - "List of..." is not part of the article title. It appears to be a stub article that happens to include a list of examples. The article can be expanded and sourced, there is no reason to delete. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable phenomenon, there will be scholarly sources on it, and all the communities will be notable geographical entities. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:SynergeticMaggot, a non-administrator, closed this AFD as keep. As it is a close decision I am reopening it per WP:DPR#NAC for an admin closure. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For those unfamiliar the topic it may seem unnotable, but the topic is actually very notable and can be expanded much more than it is here. While most New Age communities are present-day benign twists on hippy communes of the 60s and 70s, extreme New Age communities are where you find many of your cults -- example: Heaven's Gate UFO Cult. Keep and expand. It's a very interesting topic if you get the right editors involved. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 10 April 2008 (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.