On Friday the 21st of November the Wikipedia community deleted their entry which explained what a Lightworker was.
Wikipedia members can nominate articles for deletion by giving a reason and starting a discussion. The debate on the future of Lightworker began on October the 11th when Wikipedia user Stiffle criticised the article for not citing any reliable sources. A second user agreed and added that the lightworker concept was not notable.
Finally, on October the 12th the Wikipedia user Cirt cast the third vote. Cirt noted that a lightworker was a “non-notable New Age concept” and that Google searches on the term resulted only in “nonreliable webpages and Wikipedia as the third result”.
There were no other votes or comments in the debate and so on the 21st of November Jac16888 deleted the article.
It is important to stress that many members of the Wikipedia community spend an awful lot of their own personal time, without pay, working hard to ensure that the site is as good as it can be. A review of Jac16888’s talk page shows that he regularly makes deletions when he believes an article is not notable enough and will discuss and debate the appropriateness of this with the community.
Cirt was thanked by another user for being a champion of the anti-Scientology group Anonymous but has made numerous edits elsewhere too.
So, can lightworker be added again to Wikipedia?
In theory, it is possible to re-add lightworker to Wikipedia. Rather than starting the page again, Wikipedia prefers users to start a discussion as to whether the page should be re-added. The process is described in the what you can do about it section of the help files.
In Pure Spirit
What do you think? Can any article on Lightworking be ‘notable’ enough and referenced from enough authoritative third party sources to satisfy wikipedia?
Update: Jac16888 has left us a nice comment to thank us for the non-hostile write-up and point out that it was Cirt who deleted the page first. Jac16888 deleted a re-post of the page which shouldn’t have been there.