Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliottism

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. Until your religion has achieved notability, enWiki is not the place to proselytize. Sorry. alphaChimp(talk) 00:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elliottism

  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}}

Unverifiable nonsense. Deletion notice removed several times without comment. Delete. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 13:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Please do not delete, this is a real religion and not a practical joke. I am a member of the church and it is offensive to delete the article on my religion. Thankyou Wikiusers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.248.172.67 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment. It's not a valid subject for an article unless you can reference it with external sources. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 13:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unverifiable and non-notable. MER-C 13:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - just another imaginary religion. BTLizard 13:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How can you call my religion imaginary. That is quite an offensive comment. I only pray my Lord does not find it as offensive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.248.172.67 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Obvious WP:NFT. Seems we get one of these every week at least. This one's no more amusing than any of the others. Fan-1967 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above, and I will call it imaginary until proven otherwise. --Kinu t/c 14:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I am a very strong follower of the religion "Elliottism". I find it insulting when members from other religions question our faith and what we believe in. Elliottism has been kept quiet for many years. It isn't a world wide religion, but now Elliott and his followers have decided we should try and make it worldwide.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as imaginary or insignificant or both. If you're keeping something secret, you probably shouldn't put it in an encyclopedia; if you're trying to garner publicity, Wikipedia isn't the place for it (because of, among other things, WP:NPOV). If few people know about it, chances are no one (or almost no one) is going to look it up in Wikipedia.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - We have over 200 hundred members of Elliottism and we wanted to let other people know about the interesting rituals we perform . Seeing as Wikepedia is used to find out about many different religions and cultures we thought it would be acceptable to inform people of the goings on in our Town. We do not wish to upset, insult or force anybody to join our religion.

    We just want to let people who view Wikepedia to find out interesting things that happen around our area. Now if you have a problem with that, your stopping people from doing what they came to do in the first place, which is research information in Wikepedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs) .

    • Comment: Wikipedia can't hold all information ever found. You need to assert notability if you want the article to be kept. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 17:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Many other religions and cults seem to have a page. Elliottism is no different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.94.68 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-19 17:31:41
  • Comment Many people use Wikipedia as a source of research. Wikipedias articles on religion are no different. Elliottism is an article that can be used by someone researching my beliefs. the whole concept is well known in our area, and could benifit people in other parts of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.94.68 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete Yay, the religion of the week Afd! Seriously, as with the others that are made up in school one day, delete. Wildthing61476 17:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a primary source for information about your religion. Show us coverage of this religion from reliable sources if you want this article to be kept. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Comment - Okay, well if you want some sources tell us what kind of sources you mean. We may have made it up ourselves, but if more than a certain amount of people believe in Elliottism it is in fact a religion. Also it's exciting and for everyone 1 person who thinks it's a complete waste of time, there are about 5 people who are laughing and saying "wow, thats pretty cool, what a funky website, i might come on here more often".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)
Again, there are other websites to do this on, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia, not a hosting of someone's idea of a "religion" just because it's "funky" or "pretty cool". Again, if you have verifiable independent sources stating why this is notable, then the article can stay. Wildthing61476 18:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this person the Elliott Wragg that the religion worships? If so, delete. Actually, delete the article anyway. It appears to be a complete hoax, and Wikipedia isn't meant for such things. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - No i'm not Elliott Wragg, and am i not allowed to use words that people can actually understand? Such as "Pretty cool" and "Funky". We have published our religion on many other sights and they find it quite interesting that people like ourselves can come up with ideas like this. If you think it's a hoax then think differently, the religion is very real and will never end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)
  • This has nothing to do with whether it's "real". I guess these "many other sights" are ones that google and yahoo search can't find, because everything we can find is that Wikipedia is the first place it's been posted, and Wikipedia never wants to be a groundbreaker for anything. We only publish things that we can Verify from other Reliable Sources. Fan-1967 19:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NFT. -->So sayeth MethnorSayeth back|Other sayethings
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, your right the websites or any facts on Elliottism doesn't show up on google or yahoo, I have just attempted it myself, so i apologise for the trouble you have taken on trying to find facts about Elliottism. But to try and keep Elliottism on board, can you please specify on sources, what would you need to keep Elliottism on Wikepedia?..Or do you want to ban it completly off your website?..Signed - Rocky Johnson (i been signing most of the arguments back) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - ...and i also don't think it's fair when people who support Elliottism get there comments deleted off this debate. People who support Elliottism are stating for having Information on Elliottism on Wikepedia, like you are stating to delete it. Everyone had their own views and i don't think it's fair that you should delete or edit what they think..Signed :RJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment One comment was removed, and it was a blatant personal attack. Wildthing61476 20:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (also, please sign your post with four tildes)
    • Comment Not only that, but the comment was not in support of your "religion" (it said, to wit, "Keep because it's hilarious and the creator of the religion is pathetic"). Danny Lilithborne 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Oh I see, How is it a personal attack?, by calling Elliott Pathetic I take it?..The reliable sources will be sorted sooner in the future, but for now, one has to complete some unfinished work and go to sleep. Oh and by the Way Danny Lilithborne...I love the fact your prized possesion is a teddy bear, i would use the word adorable =). Goodnight to everyone! xx"hugs"xx Signed: RJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I was only saying good night, i am human you know, i like to wish people a pleasant sleep even if its on a debate page. So don't say its bollocks because it isn't, just because i am a nice person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.133.87 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - Nothing notable about a cult with only 200 members ... there are social clubs with local chapters larger than that which are not listed in Wikipedia. --72.75.117.73 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very good, but a bible allegedly written on some beer mats in the local watering hole, 200 members, The "church buildings" are private residences. WP:NFT and WP:-O Amen, Ohconfucius 05:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe these cult idiots will commit a mass suicide. Otherwise, it's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YechielMan (talk • contribs)
  • Excuse me. Whether this is true or not true, i think it should be respected by all, maybe it is a real religion and you hypocrites are downing it because of it's member numbers! I think you should all grow up and respect other people's views and religions. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.14.146 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment There is no liable reason to delete this yet, there is work on the official site now, so it is only a matter of time before these "cult idiots" will be official and rightfully allowed on Wikipedia. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil satanic choy (talk • contribs) — Evil satanic choy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment' Once again, are there verifiable independent sources to back any of this information up? Cult on not, there has to be proof this is little more than something made up at the pub one night. Wildthing61476 21:07, 21 September 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.