Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stimulism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two new religions in one day? Wow, that sucks... but hey, we all have our beliefs. Just because we can't prove it doesn't mean it can't exist. I mean, think about it, can we prove christianity? No. So, you can't just delete a belief, and expect to host the Christianity religion on wikipedia. Sorry, but in all honesty, you must admit that part is true.

You also say I may be the sole practicioner.

Yes. This is a VERY uncommon religion. According to the Master we have, there is me and 5 other people who follow this religion. I am creating this page to try to find the other 5. Please do not delete it quite yet...

• Comment - No one said it didn't exist. Only that it is not notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A religion followed by few people (or one) is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia gets a lot of them. As soon as someone notices the articles, they tend to go the way this one will. Fan1967 04:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In return

Why not leave them? What if there are people looking for a new outlook on life, and they suddenly see a special ideal that seems right for them? It might make someone feel happy, and it seems legit. Sure, it's an encyclopedia, but, where do encyclopedias get their information? A source. Where does a source come from? A biased point of view. All historians have their own point of view, which is why each encyclopedia has a special unique definition. This is just one of them.

Response Because then Wikipedia would be an indiscriminate collection of information. 'Nuff said. Fan1967 05:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for making it clear at the least.

Feel free to delete the article. I will continue to add to it on my own, not on wikipedia, and then I might repost the entire thing, so you can make a more informed decision. Thanks for your time.

Comment The contents of the religion don't matter. Quite frankly I've seen some that were quite thoughtful and incisive. The lack of followers and notability is the criterion, and if you post it again, without having first gained a substantial following, nothing will change the next time around. Fan1967 05:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that's cool.

Just a quick question... How many people do you consider to be a substancial following?

No hard and fast rule. The critera are notability and verifiability. Most important would be indications that many thousands have heard of it, that people are reporting on it, and talking about it even if they are not followers. That's notability. You can get away with very few members if they do something that attracts a huge amount of attention, like Heaven's Gate, but I don't think you want to go there. Fan1967 23:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)