Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undeniablefactology

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. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undeniablefactology

Hoax, neologism, original research. Google hits? Grand total of zero. Ifnord 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Just because it doesn't have a Google hit, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could be just hitting the internet world starting with this, and you would kill it? You know, there was an journal once that wanted to write about the "All Your Base," Zerowing blunder, but didn't because the manager didn't think the article would be of any future worth. Now look at it.

  And even then, I will support it, I read something about this. It is valid.

  ~Shamino2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamino2 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-26 18:13:33 UTC.

  • "All Your Base" is still not notable for anything more than the sheer inanity of its sheeplike adherents. This is even less so. Delete and begone. --Agamemnon2 08:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. This is the religion equivalent of a garage band. --King of All the Franks 18:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari 18:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "I read something about this" doesn't quite meet WP:V (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• The article describes a new (parody) religion. Not only is there no evidence that the rest of the world has acknowledged it, and that it has become a part of the corpus of human knowledge, but also there is no evidence of its existence whatsoever outside of this Wikipedia article. (The article cites no sources, as usual.) Our Wikipedia:No original research policy is aimed at exactly this sort of thing. Wikipedia is not the place for the first publications of new religions, new political philosophies, new interpretations of history, new theories of physics, and so forth. The article tells us that the religion was made up by "two boys", moreover. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The place for this is the authors' own web sites. Delete. Uncle G 19:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher."

  The Journal of Southern Religion printed the article on this. It is valid.

  • Then you should be able to show us where it is published. Uncle G 19:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - faithcruft. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 21:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. It doesn't even qualify for BJAODN, if you ask me. -- Perfecto 01:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ajwebb 01:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• This information is completely factual. I am in possesion of literature about this faux religion, and all of the information on this website is correct.
• Delete. If you want to immitate the success of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, get a following before documenting it on Wikipedia. --Quarl 02:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Undeniablecruftology. Endomion 04:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Vary | Talk 04:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — mark ✎ 11:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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.