Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspirituality (2nd nomination)

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. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conspirituality[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and if does barely meet it (I dont think so personally), this is no more than a wiktionary entry. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article unambiguously meets WP:GNG due to the presence of multiple reliable sources that focus on the concept of conspirituality itself, including Ward and Voas's journal article and multiple news reports. The argument that it is currently no more than a wiktionary entry is irrelevant relative to deletion policy, since the presence of long journal articles and news articles provides ample room to expand the article. Per WP:ATD, deletion should not be used on articles that currently are too barebones but could be improved via editing. DaysonZhang (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is backed up by multiple reliable sources. X-Editor (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google shows that the neologism appears to get traction. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM or merge and redirect to Conspiracy_theory#Types. Per our policy: "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted." A Google News search for "Conspirituality" returns several hundred hits on first check, however, after eliminating instances of it simply being referred to in "Also read" references on Yahoo circling back to the same article and similar appearances, there are just 19 hits in the last 16 years [1], of which five are references to the name of a guy's podcast [2] and three are non-RS Medium blog posts. My sample of many of the rest seem to indicate they're largely fleeting or one-off invocations of the term. Chetsford (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article has for sources Vice, ABC Opinion post, paper whose authors email address in the source is literally conspirituality@hotmail.co.uk, Jarry (university primary source), & local Portland, Maine 'magazine' looking like a blog. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviuously notable and receiving significant discussion in both academic and media circles: A simple search on Google Books and JSTOR shows it has been in use by academics since at least 2016. Given the nominator's repeated attempts to scrub Wikipedia's JP Sears article of any and all mention of the article subject's outspoken involvement with conspirituality circles and how widely this term is now used, particularly in media sources (as a simple Google News search reveals), it's difficult to take this nomination as made in good faith (there's now tons of stuff like this, for example). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the previous AfD resulted in delete in 2011, it's an indication that the term already existed. But today it's clearly notable, here are more sources, easily found in a minute: https://theconversation.com/yes-religion-plays-a-more-prominent-role-in-politics-but-secular-australia-has-always-been-a-myth-160107 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/technology/yoga-teachers-take-on-qanon.html https://www.abc.net.au/religion/covid-conspiracies-and-conspirituality/12760976 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/why-are-women-more-hesitant-to-get-the-covid-19-vaccine-1.4558428 https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/apr/16/a-riveting-tale-of-electoral-podcasts-of-the-week https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/03/29/qanon-new-age-spirituality/ —Paleo Neonate – 21:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for WP:GNG. In addition to the refs used in the article, I found:
- The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movemements, Volume II (2016), has at least several paragraphs on it (on the one page visible in GB...can't see the preceding or subsequent page to see how much further their coverage goes)
- Handbook of Nordic New Religions (2015)
- Toronto Star article "The rise of 'conspirituality"
- Journal of Contemporary Religion paper "Conspirituality Reconsidered"
- Another Toronto Sun article, "Peace, love AND misunderstanding: 'Conspirituality' is an apparently paradoxical alliance between conspiracy theorists and New Agers"
- Washington Post article, "QAnon's Unexpected Roots in New Age Spirituality"
- Haaretz article discussing "Israel's conspirituality scene" (that's a quote from the article, the article title is "Iranian Accounts, Russian Tactics and Q: Israel Has Become a Disinformation Battlefield")
  Schazjmd (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources that specifically discuss this topic to justify an article, as demonstrated by the above sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2021 (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.