Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhianism

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 was delete and redirect to Cthulhu. Yes, Cthulhu is popular in Russian memes, but so far nothing particulary notable, except for one question to Putin. No source indicate that it is something everlasting. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cthulhianism

Cthulhianism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Parody religion. Google has never heard of the term and only has about an hundred hits for "cthulhuism". Conveniently for the author, all the refs are to sites in Russian. Probably an hoax, at best non-notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • probably delete possibly keep need a russian to tell us. shouldn't delete non-hoaxes. JerryVanF (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing concrete to indicate this actually exists. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. We don't even know if this actually exists, and frankly having had a look at the article I'd be extremely surprised if it does. In any case the present article is really awful and full of semi-nonsense like: "What if Cthulhu is gluttonized by someone else, even before he wakes up?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


  • keep "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."
No language restrictions, as you can see.
Cthulhianism has got coverage in Russian.
And if one doesn't know the language - it's not a reason for deletion.
User:Sirartemcamelot
  • Comment Not an original research... Honestly this is just a translation of [1] and a little of [2] - about emoticons.

But first source is for registrated users only.

User:Sirartemcamelot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.43.224.157 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keep Could someone who can translate Russian let us know if the Russian sources are actually reliable sources talking about this? Until I here otherwise I'm inclined to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Changing to weak redirect per Smerdis's comment below. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • At least some of the Russian sites seem to be about Cthulhu, but my impression is that they are mainly fansites. Пх’нглуи мглв’нафх Ктулху Р’льех вгах’нагл фхтагн. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as either a hoax or non-notable. Although I can't read Russian, it is quite apparent from the site structure that few, if any, of the external links could be used as reliable sources (most seem to be blogs). Also, if the subject was real, I would rather expect that at least a few English-language sources would confirm this. Jakew (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Lenta.Ru is a reasonably reliable source, and the link given in the article does cover (sort of) the topic for about one paragraph. Strongly disagree with comments like that "if the subject was real, I would rather expect that at least a few English-language sources would confirm this"; try finding any information about Korea's first fighter pilot in English (he has whole books written about him in Korean). cab (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merging is fine but... it would kill the idea... And the idea is to tell about a parody religion, not to tell some more about Cthulhu. And for someone studing parody religion or modern culture (anyway, or just interested in) Cthulhianism is quite noteable.

I personally see a few interesting ideas (though my fields of studies are modern business culture and city culture), Cthulhianism Criticism and Exercising Cthulhianism are most awesome. In Criticism we see that mock religions actually compete and simulate the style of traditional theological disputes. And Exercising tells us that mock religions are getting, well, pluged into routine activities. IMHO P.S. after all, Wikipedia has got an article on Campus Crusade for Cthulhu. And most references on CCC ar also blogs, social networks and private web-sites. Cthulhianism is at least as important as CCC. Has President Bush spoken on Cthulhu? Well, Putin and Medvedev - both did speak on the issue.User:Sirartemcamelot —Preceding comment was added at 11:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I do agree with the suggestion that Campus Crusade for Cthulhu is poorly referenced and probably should be deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah, sorry, shouldn't have refered to CCC. But then again - when references are enough and significant? To my mind if a country leader is speaking on the topic (even though he was asked to do so) and media are telling about that - the topic might be noteable. User:Sirartemcamelot —Preceding comment was added at 14:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sources to indicate notability or to even verify anything in the article don't appear to exist. I think this is some mix of WP:OR and WP:MADEUP. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 23:03, 8 May 2008 (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.