Talk:Eclectic paganism

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 September 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Neopaganism Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult 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.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

[Untitled]

I know you need something to do...GET A FREAKIN LIFE..ECLECTIC PAGANISM is the most popular form of modern paganism and it deserves its own page. It is referenced, linked to the modern paganism page here, it is not original, nor opinionated, and is based in fact. Find something else to do rather than being a wiki fan boy.

Please assume WP:GOODFAITH, Classic70s. Part of the issue with making articles based on religion is that you have to show a lot of sourcing to prove that it's notable enough for an article of its own. It looks like this is actually viewed as somewhat separate from MP, so it could likely warrant its own page at this point in time. It's considered to be both sort of part of MP but also somewhat separate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Substance – Social Media Section Questionable

Does this really merit being its own article, in the state that it is currently in? Other than a paragraph of definition, the entire body of the article is a "debate" on the merits of neopagans' use of social media. This is certainly not scholarly and doesn't provide much of anything of use from an academic perspective.

Eckmann88 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Use of Social Media" section is awful. The style is totally inappropriate and frankly the content's not that relevant, particularly in the absence of more important sections like a clear definition or Beliefs or History. It reads like an advocate's blog. If it can't be rewritten in proper encyclopaedic style, this whole section needs to be deleted. FilthiestOfPeasant (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know if this is the correct template to use, but I added a Neutral Point of View banner above the "Use of Social Media" section. The content in the section definitely seems biased, or at the very least too opinionated to belong on Wikipedia. I also think that there is no good reason to use the phrase "witchy aesthetic" on Wikipedia, especially without explaining what you mean and acting as if everyone who will read the page will understand you.

SeanHogan777 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This section is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. @SeanHogan777, thank you for adding the template. I also feel that "witchy aesthetic" is inappropriate.

In light of all this, I would vote for the removal of this subsection in its entirety. /VFD Very Fantastic Dude (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a stab at fixing this article a little bit, but I know nothing about this topic so more experienced eyes are probably needed. AnandaBliss (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]