Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cirrusism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cirrusism
DIY religioncruft Ben-w 19:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This article may be relevant, give it time to expand. A new user took time to create it, give him a chance, please. It needs a clean-up not deletion. D. J. Bracey (talk)
19:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment clean it up and expand it all you like, it still won't be notable or encyclopedic and should still be deleted for that reason. Ben-w 20:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Another comment This entire VfD shows some of the worse rudeness I have seen on Wikipedia. The editor that had put this article on VfD did so two minutes after a new user created this article. I see no reason why this cannot expand, and I still believe that it is plausible that Wikipedia have some articles that may not show on Yahoo! or Google. If deleting an article by a user that had been on this site for no more than five minutes, and not even giving it a chance to expand is a warm welcome to you all, I do not see how anyone stays on this site (including myself). This entire vote is biased, because I most point out that so many Wikipedian are adverse to religion, they pretty much don't want to see more religion articles here. One major problem with Wikipedia is that too many editors are caught up in their self righteous "intellect" that they don't see the most intelligent thing to do: let other's expand their mind as well. Ergo, how about welcoming a new idea, and allowing potential editors (i.e. the one who made this article) feel welcome and obliged to edit on this encyclopedia, rather than bashing his first article, and scaring him away. I didn't even see one of you all welcome him into this dispute. But that is too late now, because he left the encyclopedia. Gee, I wonder why?D. J. Bracey (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Is this "religion" notable? No. Is there any verifiable information about it? No. So we delete it. Ben-w 17:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wow I really am not trying to argue. You didn't give it much time to be notable, did you? So, you delete it after giving it three minutes to expand. The whole arguement that this is not notable is an opinion in itself. Why is it not notable? It 1)presents fact about the subject at hand, and 2) adds new information to this site. Ben-w has accused me of "ad hominem attacks" when I have only stated that the notion of giving an entirely new editor three minutes to create and improve an article was somewhat rude. I just have a feeling that it is. D. J. Bracey (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment All the time in the world will not make this article notable because the subject is not notable. Is there a way I can get this piece of information to enter your head? It is not relevant how long the article has been there or how mean you think I am or what you think Wikipedia should be. A two-person "religion" which consists entirely of a freeweb-hosted site is not notable. The group has at best a handful of adherents, there are no public documents or records or articles about it; it has no buildings dedicated to it, it has been involved in no newsworthy or historical events. It is not notable. NOT NOTABLE. If you want to make a case for keeping this article, you need to do so based on the notability of Cirrusism. Try to find an article about it in a newspaper. There isn't one. Find a reference to it in any published media. There isn't any. Find an external webpage that discusses it. There isn't one. Ben-w 19:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, there is an external link, as posted by the new user. How is it that your opinion: that it is not notable, any greater than it is notable? The article 1) DOES PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT IT DOES EXIST. YOU GAVE THE ARTICLE THREE MINUTES TO EXPAND AND YET BLINDLY BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE "NOTABLE" Maybe the article would be more to your whims if you had the dececency to have a modicum of patience. The whole argument that the notability should be basd on the side of an article is very scewed. One editor posted that "Wikipedia is not actually here to spread new ideas" And yet this supposed to be an encyclopedia of unbiased content, used to benefit others? This article has not been given time to expand, as Ben-w has impulsively bought this up for VfD, without consideration that the article had been three minutes old, and thus, has not time to expand.D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, there is an external link, as posted by the new user. How is it that your opinion: that it is not notable, any greater than it is notable? The article 1) DOES PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT IT DOES EXIST. YOU GAVE THE ARTICLE THREE MINUTES TO EXPAND AND YET BLINDLY BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE "NOTABLE" Maybe the article would be more to your whims if you had the dececency to have a modicum of patience. The whole argument that the notability should be basd on the side of an article is very scewed. One editor posted that "Wikipedia is not actually here to spread new ideas" And yet this supposed to be an encyclopedia of unbiased content, used to benefit others? This article has not been given time to expand, as Ben-w has impulsively bought this up for VfD, without consideration that the article had been three minutes old, and thus, has not time to expand.D. J. Bracey (talk)
- Comment All the time in the world will not make this article notable because the subject is not notable. Is there a way I can get this piece of information to enter your head? It is not relevant how long the article has been there or how mean you think I am or what you think Wikipedia should be. A two-person "religion" which consists entirely of a freeweb-hosted site is not notable. The group has at best a handful of adherents, there are no public documents or records or articles about it; it has no buildings dedicated to it, it has been involved in no newsworthy or historical events. It is not notable. NOT NOTABLE. If you want to make a case for keeping this article, you need to do so based on the notability of Cirrusism. Try to find an article about it in a newspaper. There isn't one. Find a reference to it in any published media. There isn't any. Find an external webpage that discusses it. There isn't one. Ben-w 19:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wow I really am not trying to argue. You didn't give it much time to be notable, did you? So, you delete it after giving it three minutes to expand. The whole arguement that this is not notable is an opinion in itself. Why is it not notable? It 1)presents fact about the subject at hand, and 2) adds new information to this site. Ben-w has accused me of "ad hominem attacks" when I have only stated that the notion of giving an entirely new editor three minutes to create and improve an article was somewhat rude. I just have a feeling that it is. D. J. Bracey (talk)
- Comment Is this "religion" notable? No. Is there any verifiable information about it? No. So we delete it. Ben-w 17:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Another comment This entire VfD shows some of the worse rudeness I have seen on Wikipedia. The editor that had put this article on VfD did so two minutes after a new user created this article. I see no reason why this cannot expand, and I still believe that it is plausible that Wikipedia have some articles that may not show on Yahoo! or Google. If deleting an article by a user that had been on this site for no more than five minutes, and not even giving it a chance to expand is a warm welcome to you all, I do not see how anyone stays on this site (including myself). This entire vote is biased, because I most point out that so many Wikipedian are adverse to religion, they pretty much don't want to see more religion articles here. One major problem with Wikipedia is that too many editors are caught up in their self righteous "intellect" that they don't see the most intelligent thing to do: let other's expand their mind as well. Ergo, how about welcoming a new idea, and allowing potential editors (i.e. the one who made this article) feel welcome and obliged to edit on this encyclopedia, rather than bashing his first article, and scaring him away. I didn't even see one of you all welcome him into this dispute. But that is too late now, because he left the encyclopedia. Gee, I wonder why?D. J. Bracey (talk)
- Comment clean it up and expand it all you like, it still won't be notable or encyclopedic and should still be deleted for that reason. Ben-w 20:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Zero hits on Google or Yahoo!. Wikipedia is not the place to get advertising for newly-created religions. Zoe 20:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment That's what is supposed to be so great about Wikipedia. As th largest encyclopedia in history, it ought to have things that others may not. D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I believe this article is by a fledgling author and has potential. We should give it time to develope and see where it goes. NightShine 20:30, August 10, 2005 (CET)
- Comment anyone voting keep, please address the reasons why I nominated this article for VfD and explain why "Cirrusism" is notable and how information about it can be independently verified. Ben-w 20:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- 'Delete all microfaiths until their leaders have been crucified' - nn and (more to the point) nonverifiable --Doc (?) 21:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Microfaiths are no more notable than micronations. --Carnildo 23:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- ah, but micronations, or should I say micronations are at least notable enough to have an article, cirrusim is not, thus delete--64.12.116.130 14:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This religion would appear to have "fallen into semi-disrepair" already, according to its own article. Notable? Hardly. The sandbox might be a good place for such articles to expand, if someone wants editing practice. Tonywalton 23:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn religion vanity. --Etacar11 01:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Abstain. It seems that the main flaw that people have with this is that they do not like the idea of this religon. Maybe these people should try to be a bit more open-minded to these microfaiths, instead of screaming crucify the author, but that is just one guy talking. 14:57 08 - 11 - 05 (CET) (Unsigned comment by NightShine (talk · contribs), only edits here)
-
- Keep I agree the text needs a spellcheck, but if the author took more time to explain, I'm sure there'll be more reason to keep it.(Unsigned vote by 82.161.174.130 (talk · contribs), only edits here)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not actually here to spread new ideas, it's here to report on the ones that have already caught on. FreplySpang (talk) 17:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Wow, this is supposed to be a place of non-bias information, and "free knowledge" that everyone should benefit from, but not allow new ideas in? D. J. Bracey (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, this is supposed to be a place of non-bias information, and "free knowledge" that everyone should benefit from, but not allow new ideas in? D. J. Bracey (talk)
- Delete Zoe is right; even with a better POV, however, this is completely insignificant and should be removed.Dottore So
- Delete no evidence of notability, and more importantly, no verifiability. It's not a question of being open minded. Wikipedia is not the place for things that are not mentioned anywhere else, it's the place for things which have information available on them from reputable sources. Friday (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I know what Wikipedia is now, and as far as I concerned, I don't know if I want to be a part of it. D. J. Bracey (talk)
- Why does it worry me that someone who has been here for eight months is only now finding out what Wikipdia is? Zoe 22:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I have know what Wikipedia is. Why does it worry me that I have wasted eight months editing for this site? (I am over 1,950, fifty more, I'll be off) D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have know what Wikipedia is. Why does it worry me that I have wasted eight months editing for this site? (I am over 1,950, fifty more, I'll be off) D. J. Bracey (talk)
- Why does it worry me that someone who has been here for eight months is only now finding out what Wikipdia is? Zoe 22:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I know what Wikipedia is now, and as far as I concerned, I don't know if I want to be a part of it. D. J. Bracey (talk)
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
