Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mattism

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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mattism

Funny, but not real and a little offensive. Lomacar 00:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It shouldn't be deleted because for all we know, this could exist, the person who made this article did make some spelling mistakes, so we should edit that, but we shouldn't delete it. Jakewater
• Keep I researched the topic Mattism, and I found out that it is a real religon. Now I am convinced that this article should not be deleted. The person who made the article about Mattism put a few weird jokes in it, but we should fix that, but not delete the whole article!Jakewater
• NN, D. ComCat 00:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real religion, important to its followers. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 01:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unverifiable vanity hoax. Real religion? Don't think so. "The primary mode of worship for females is to get in contact with him, make out with him, and possibly give him a handjob. Matt beleives that at this current growing rate of beleivers, he will soon reach the fame of Ron Hubbard, creater of Scientology, and after that, Matt beleives he will earn status greater than that of the pope, and become ruler and savior of all mankind. Upon that great achievement, YHWH will come down to the earth in his buick/spaceship and allow all human beleivers to "hitch a ride to the cosmos"". Um, yeah. - Sensor 01:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• The article cites no sources, research turns up nothing, and Purplefeltangel provides no evidence that this is a real religion that has been accepted as such by the world at large. This is unverifiable original research. Delete. Uncle G 01:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete mildly amusing hoax. chowells 21:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wicca has not been accepted by the world at large and we still have an article about it. By your standards we would have to delete every religion, since no religion has 6.5 billion followers. Religions are notable, and this is a religion, no matter how personal or silly. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 01:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Wrong. As the bottom of our article on it amply demonstrates, Wicca has been accepted as a religion by the world at large. In contrast, neither you nor the author have presented any evidence whatsoever that this purported religion has been accepted as a religion by anyone, or indeed even exists in the first place. Please cite sources to back up your claim that "this is a religion". By the way: "My standards" here are verifiability and no original research, as explicitly stated above. Asserting that they should not apply is not the way to construct an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 02:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is obviously a hoax. For a religion to be worthy of a Wikipedia article, it should be noticed by the world at large, not necessarily accepted in a favorable sense. If the Pope, Billy Graham, and the Dalai Lama started giving sermons about how Mattism was the work of the devil and everyone should steer far away from Mattism, that would be a sign that Mattism was at least notable even if not accepted. But there is no evidence that this religion exists anywhere outside this Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 03:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Acceptablity is not the issue. NOTABILITY is the issue. This is not notable. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Acceptance by other people is part of the process outlined in Wikipedia:no original research. Notability is not the issue, as the question of notability only arises after the idea that there even is such a religion has been peer reviewed. Uncle G 02:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not WP:V.--Isotope23 02:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, transparent hoax. I find only false positives googling for "mattism" or "mattist", and no hits at all for "Ozakuman", the supposed leader. —Cryptic (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax / vanity --keepsleeping say what 02:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, hoax - cohesion | talk 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing concrete from a google search, poorly written, absolutely obsurd, kinda funny though.
  • P.S. If this somehow turns out to be a real religion, then I am sincerly sorry if my comments offend anyone (More blood has been spilt in this world over religion than anything else, better safe than sorry)KnowledgeOfSelf 05:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Newyorktimescrossword 05:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above dr.alf 11:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this shouldn't even be a question of notability. There's no evidence this actually exists (as opposed to numerous publications about Wicca). Unverifiable hoax. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Barring objections, I plan to speedily delete this later today. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious speedy delete. It's a joke top-to-bottom. Marskell 13:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete. I object to speedying because this text is not unsalvageably incoherent, which is what the patent nonsense CSD says. I think the nonsense CSD is overused, and is edging us towards a practice of deleting articles without oversight just because the administrator thinks the subject or article is stupid. (But note that I am in favor of deletion reform, and making these "obvious" deletions go faster, as long as there is some kind of oversight.) — brighterorange (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rubbish - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete mere inches away from speedy as vanity. DJ Clayworth 21:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• What? Not a single BJAODN vote before mine? Borisblue 22:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, silly hoax/joke/vanity. Boris beat me to the BJAODN, though! MCB 22:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Mattism is a real religion to its followers, and deserves a small entry on the wikipedia.org Also, if you do a google search you will find approximately 650 hits for the various forms of Mattism. There is quite a bit of conflict over the basic ideas, but I think the general idea comes across. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.41.36.190 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC).
• Delete. Fg2 03:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax or nn or unverifiable or all of the above. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete clearly a fake. Should not have been nominated as "Non notable" though, completely bogus, nominator obviously couldnt be bothered to research it properly. Justinc 10:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep

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.