Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furmanism

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. Singularity 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Furmanism

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

Non-notable new religion. Possibly WP:MADEUP. Few ghits, relevant or otherwise. Delete Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom; probably hoax. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination; probable hoax. Mh29255 (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete When Google only gets 168 hits (total, relevant hits are probably less than 10, I didn't bother to count), it's almost certainly nonsense. Of the first 10 hits, it appears only one refers to this as a faith (and jokingly at that), at least one is a WP mirror, and the rest seem to use the term in a manner analogous to a spoonerism. Hoax. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This group is real, includes some well-known individuals, since when does Google-hits determine whether something is real knowledge or not? JohnKenter, 06:15, 19 December, 2007
    • We're not arguing about whether it is real, that is just irrelevent. My foot's real- where's the article on that? We are arguing about whether it is notable- do you have any reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I am new to this whole process, so be patient with me. John Kenter's claim is correct--most scientists of religion estimate somewhere around 1 million followers outside China, most in Europe, with perhaps another 200,000 inside China. If these figures are within the range of being correct that makes this 'religion' or belief system far larger than Scientology, Deism, New Ageism, or numerous other 'isms which are included in your encyclopedia. Is size your litmus test for inclusion? If so, this topic clearly qualifies. Thank you for your time. Alan C. Chambers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.804.72.6 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If more than a million people believed in it, it would turn up more google hits - and that is a fact. Either a hoax or a partial hoax, making greatly exaggerated claims. Please delete as there are no reliable sources.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, it reads like an essay and rambles on without directly addressing the topic at hand in a logical, encyclopedic way. It doesn't start off by explaining what the subject is - it starts off on something which is not directly about 'furmanism' at all.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources. Smells extremely fishy. --Russ (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete* per reasons above. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 20-Mule-Team Delete: Hoax article. There is ONE hit, just one, on Google UK (this for a religion allegedly strong in Europe) for "Davis Furman" + "Furmanism," and that's a 17-hour-old mirror of this article. Of the references in the article, the so-called "Journal of European Religious Statistics" does not exist. Neither do any of the articles referenced; the only extant hits on Google UK on any of them come from the aforementioned mirror. The Knippenberg book does exist, but "Furmanism" isn't referenced in it at all, let along on the pages given. By the bye, exactly how likely is it for a religion allegedly founded in the 1920s to have the same two founders still be at the helm in 2002? There, that's ten minutes of my life I will never get back.  RGTraynor  22:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SHENANIGANS. Creator is probably having more fun making us run around disconfirming sources than he had writing the article in the first place. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - I speedied the creators' article through lack of notability. This is obviously a mess around, and even if it isn't, it's clearly WP:NN. ScarianTalk 12:49, 22 December 2007 (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.