Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagism

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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jagism

Tagged as nonsense, but IMO does nopt qualify for speedy deletion. However seems non-notabel if not a neologism or a hoax. 8 googel hits, none of which seem to be this useage of "Jagism". Delete unless verifiable sources citesd with evidence of notability. DES ^(talk) 05:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Not a single applicable Google hit for "jagism". Seems pretty damn far from notable. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 06:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• I change my socks every day. Thats the jagist in me. delete.—Gaff ^ταλκ 07:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn nonsense --Anetode 09:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can I put up a page for JJayism? --JJay 15:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Depends if you can come up with enough sock puppets to support you :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Indeed, shortly there will be a web-site which will explore Jagism in more depth - however, it will not be featured here. Eddie.willers 18:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per longwinded rants of the sockpuppets and essayist. Karmafist 18:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per everything mentioned above and below. Punkmorten 18:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nn nonsense. Hegel on crack or worse... -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Aquillion 02:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Change something - delete the page. JPD (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete likely hoax. --Fire Star 21:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxific, nonnotable, unsubstantiated, unreferenced, reads-like-an-ad, and the sockpuppets can't argue themselves out of a paper bag. And frankly, if you're going to found such a damn simple religio-philosophical movement, at least back it up with verifiable number of one trillion fanatical supporters. The more hard-to-digest philosophical background the movement has, the less supporters you'd need to make it notable. =) --Wwwwolf 21:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet Comments

• I see the page for Jagism is down for deletion, nay 'speedy deletion'

Why? Why is Jagism less relevant than Buddhism, Communism or any other 'ism'? This is nothing more than an ismist reaction and hopefully it shall be reversed. Long live Jagism. DO NOT DELETE! Hendo! 11:56 19 October 2005 CET User has 6 edits, 5 on this page. Karmafist 18:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC) psst, new guys have to start somewhere, grass. Hendo!

• I'm sorry you think this is nonsense, but it's something I am very serious about.What is wrong in trying to change your life ?

I am putting Jagism into practise everyday and have several interested parties willing to try Jagism.It ain't a religous thing, just a simple philosophy where you make your own decisions. I am currently in the process of trying to write a pamphlet about Jagism and the positive benefits it can have on your life.Cheers.

Why is it less notable than Buddhism? Maybe because Buddhism has millions of adherents worldwide whereas a google on Jagism yields 12 hits including one speculating on a particular foible of his Jaguar being a "jagism" :-) That and it sounds like a vanity name for something which people already did anyway. So, either demonstrate notability (e.g. list of notable adherents) or delete. (later) checked some more: I really can't find any credible evidence that this exists outside of a very limited circle - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Everything starts from a small beginning - even Christianity started with just 12 disciples. Perhaps if this Wiki was available to the Roman Empire, they could dismiss any articles from Christians as having no "credible evidence that this exists outside of a small circle" or has any "notable adherents." Does the endorsement of someone 'notable' give credibility to an idea?

• When Christianity had 12 adherents it was probably not notable. It now has 2.1 billion, so is. What verifiable external evidence of notability has been presented for Jagism? None. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• So shouldn't we be giving jagism the same chance to flourish? Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel? DizietSma 15:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but not here: see WP:NOT - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't "jagism" a legitimate offshoot of the Marxist / Trotskyist dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change, though applied to personal choice, i.e. more akin to the discarded Hegelian idealistic shell? DizietSma 14:21 19 October 2005

• Why DizietSma, you may be correct. Hendo!

User has 7 edits, 4 on this page. Likely meatpuppet of "Hendo!". Karmafist 18:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I take great exception to that - I am my own person and have actually tried to point out legitimate references, using one cite below from JC Maxwell and to Dialectics, uisng both the Marxist and Hegelian models. I am neither the OP nor am I any other poster supporting or defending the subject. Please retract your offensive assertion, which has no basis in fact. DizietSma 22:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's the basis in fact, supported by the fact that you and Hendo are the only two users to vote to keep this spam. Update, the edit count is now up to 5 out of 8. I'll send over the newip talk template message just in case he isn't a Hendo meatpuppet under the spirit of WP:BITE. Karmafist 21:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• DizietSma is no 'meatpuppet' of mine, but an entity of his/her own. Hendo! 07:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete! Jagism has a following in roughly three European countries and possibly also in the South Atlantic. Although a minority group, it is nevertheless a minority group that crosses international borders, and looks set to grow. Hendo!
  • ITYM roughly three personailites, all in the same head :-)

Tsk! When Jagism takes off, the naysayers on Wikipedia will be kicking themselves for missing a trick! Hendo! 07:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

If Jagism takes off, it might become notable. But thanks for the clarification: your statement implies that this is indeed a soapbox, as per WP:NOT, making the case for deletion unassailable. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Further info: Google search for Jagism & "Jag Betty" yields zero hits. The article content is therefore likely incorrect, quite apart from being non-notable.

You will never change your life until you change something that you do daily.

This is a huge concept to grasp. People always tell me, “I’m going to make some major changes.” My response to that is simple: Certain aspects of your life might need a significant overhaul, but I don’t need to know about those big changes. I’m more interested in the minor change you plan to make today. Personal improvement starts when you change something you do daily—a routine, a habit, a way of working, or interacting with other people."

Dr. John C. Maxwell [1]

• Notability again - everything starts somewhere, the longest journey with a single step, etc. If Google does not have a hit for it, it therefore does not exist? Isn't this the very nature of Wiki., to establish information not held by Google-esque ranking of information? DizietSma 15:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Every day some billions of people walk a few steps. Some hundreds of millions walk a few miles. One might finish walking round the world, and that would be worth putting on Wikipedia.

Comment: Now, isn't that insightful?! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support guys. There will be a web-site up shortly dealing with Jagism in more depth.

• Comment The purpoose of wikipedia is to be a compedium of verifiable, encyclopedic articles. Something need not be noted on google (many of our historical topics are not) but there must be some verifiable evidenece of the existance of the subject, and some reson to belive that it is significant, i.e. notable. if this can't be found on google, where can it be found. Have any books been published about Jagism? Have any newspapers or other media reported on it? are there large numbers of people devoted to it? It may be an admirable and valuable concept. We don't oppose it. Neither do we foster it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it is not the place where new ideas get promoted. Go out into the world and convice people of the importance or value of Jagism. Get them talking and writing about it, in one medium or another. Then come back here and we will report on what they say. (If people are already doing this, tell us here. Give us citations.) DES ^(talk) 16:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys why don't try Jagism for yourselves? Go on, change something.

Sure - we'll change Wikipedia by removing this unverifiable cruft :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 10:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Message from Jag; Fellow disciples of Jagism, do not despair.Let the greedhead non forward thinking have their way. We know Jagism works and will continue to work it's way into a society that is, thanks to folk who refuse to try and change, gonna end up disappearing up its own ass.

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.