Talk:Neo-paganism in the Republic of Ireland

Requested move 24 March 2023

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.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Neo-paganism in the Republic of Ireland → Modern paganism in the Republic of Ireland – Consistency with main page Modern paganism and other spread pages like Modern paganism in the United Kingdom and Modern paganism in Scandinavia Ingwina (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 08:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 06:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

Note: WikiProject Religion has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 06:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Ireland has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 06:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Neopaganism has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 06:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

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.

Article

@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)

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)

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)

Well, it's now significantly improved, with somewhat decent references. More tomorrow and over the weekend after I hit the books - Alison ^talk 05:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Excellent editing, this is much stronger now. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)