Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bundaism

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. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bundaism

Another invented religion. I proposed deletion and advised the author on his talk page, he reverted without comment.

• Delete. Gazpacho 02:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A religion based on looking at people's butts at the beach? Author should look up "silly" and "funny" in the dictionary and note that their meanings, while similar, are not identical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, WP:NFT. Royboycrashfan 02:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, five whole members, according to their website. That's more than some of the new religions we've seen lately, but not enough for notability. Fan1967 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Hoax, patent nonsense. Bucketsofg 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT delete Bundaism is a new movement, and I hope the community of Wikipedia will embrace it. Wikipedia should have a reference to this most excellent of spiritual practices, to document all of humanity's contributions. While you may not be as dedicated to the Bunda as others, there are people who are devoted to the beauty of the bunda, and you should respect that. I do have to thank all of you for reading the article. If any of you care to join please let me know.Boomboomlama
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, nonsense, WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 10:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT Delete Please don't delete. The article does not claim to be a religion. Appears to be more of a "Practice". Has merit.tobinu

Comment When I go to the beach, I also look at women, when my wife's not watching me. I do not, however, consider this "practice" to be worthy of an encyclopedia article. Fan1967 14:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Errr ... when the author himself regrets posting the article, it's safe to say it has no proven value. I'd be a bit more discriminating about my assertions of merit. RGTraynor 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, it actually has 6 members but the pickings are slimmer on the Porto Metro than the beaches of Brazil... Deizio 16:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up on the beach one day. Elkman - ^(talk) 19:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete a7, nn club. --Rory096 23:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There isn't even any content on their web site. Tyrenius 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable --Icarus 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Ironically what Boomboomlama said is probably a better argument against this article than for it. Delete per OR, NN, neologism, and nonsense. --Bachrach44 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Already He has now copied the article to his user page. I 'spose he can preserve it there, fair 'nuff. --MrFizyx 22:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:38, 7 April 2006 (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.