Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chirpyism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. – Robert 16:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chirpyism

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Hoax, albeit a funny one. Travelbird 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • not at all! chirpyism truly exists. We chirpists follow strict codes of chirpy conduct.
  • Save.Chripyism Lives and breathes and represents followers, of many backgrounds, creeds and races. To remove it as a hoax is an affront to our shared beliefs and our developing culture. As J. S. Mill states to squash a belief just because its followers are in the minority is an insult (and counter-productive) to the serch of truth, and thew vibracy of the good life.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.108.127 (talk • contribs)
  • SaveAs the founder of Chirpyism, I strongly disagree with the comments that it is a hoax. By founding this religion, I hope to gain considerable tax breaks and therefore, I strictly follow Chirpyism. G. Joseph 28/06/06—Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham85 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Hoax per nom. BJK 19:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. NN if it exists. You know, we haven't had a joke religion here in several days. I think Kekkosism was the last one. Mildly amusing, but not worth BJA. Fan1967 20:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Almost patent nonsense? Molerat 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete cute, funny, but still a hoax. As for joke religions there was Cummalism a few days ago. Wildthing61476 20:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Save I live in exeter and have actually heard of Chirpyism. Prehaps not well established, but certainly it exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.108.127 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment Even if that is true we still require some sort of source Lsjzl 20:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. You may only vote once in an AfD. Please try to remember this. ---Charles 02:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. More "new" religions. My head asplode. Tony Fox (speak) 20:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom this 'religion' is currently not notable as far as I can find. If it is indeed notable as suggested, please update the article to incorporate verifiable sources which validate your claims. Note that having a Nation State bearing said name is probably not the greatest source of notability. DrunkenSmurf 20:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question is notability a word? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.108.127 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. Protect against recreation. Burn its creators at the stake. ---Charles 20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Now really... -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That may be overdoing it. Hanging seems more appropriate. (A rope is reusable, while the faggots of wood are merely renewable.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, hang them if you must. Lousy liberals...--Charles 03:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, complete nonsense. No references, can't be verified. Not really all that well thought out as a joke. Sorry. Kuru talk 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Tweedly tweedly tweet, delete. NawlinWiki 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and protect from re-creation, non-notable, non-verifiable hoax religion. --Coredesat talk 21:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • delete the hoax. Joeyramoney 23:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DrunkenSmurf, and in particular that the only reference I can find is on NationStates. SM247My Talk 23:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, although IMHO it's no more ridiculous than e.g. Law of Attraction (New Age). --DaveG12345 02:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 05:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-29 09:15Z
  • Delete why-o-why wasn't it a db|nonsense in the first place. --Richhoncho 21:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Points for creativity (it's better written than many a real post), but delete.Tweeq 13:18, 4 July 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.