Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internetism (religion)

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, and may the Net have mercy on our souls. DS 14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internetism (religion)

hoax, or at least not anything that really exists. The quotes given in support are using the Internet as a metaphore for God, not the basis for any real religion. Peyna 04:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The article completely fails to establish this as a notable religion. As per the nominator, the quotes are completely taken out of context, anyway. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe should change the title from "Internetism (religion)" to Internetism (general belief)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.75.108 (talk • contribs) Note: created the article under discussion
  • That might be a step in the right direction, but it will still be incumbent upon you to establish that some significant number of people actually hold this as a general belief. I think it's a great idea (Serial Experiments Lain fan here :-), but I think it is still pretty much in the realm of science fiction. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as non-verified. --Vsion 05:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights guarantees absolute freedom for exercising one's religious beliefs (this includes online postings). The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Paragraph 1, Article 18, Part III says "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching". Thus this article should be recognized as a religious exercise by either an individual or community and thus should be allowed to function and left to be, according to the 1st Amendment of the US Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.75.108 (talk • contribs)
  • Good day! While we respect your considerably well-bolded and logically sourced right to practice any religion that strikes your fancy, it should be noted that said right doesn't extend to other people's/group's/etcetera's websites. Additionally, as has been noted, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Nor is it a country, a planet, a galaxy, or a universe - it is an encyclopedia (link provided for clarification), and thus an innapropriate place to practice religion. Now, if your belief system was notable, which we invite you to prove, we'd be more than happy to mention it. Until then, I invite you to surf around and become familiar with wikipedia, what warrants inclusion, and community norms and standards. Have a wikiwiki day! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your well wishes. on your argument that Wikipedia is not a place to practice religion, well, that depends on what the definition of practice is. We started this article so that we may share our ideas with the world, wikipedia's the easiest ways since most of the world's media is biased to some degree. Since wikipedia's mission is to share knowledge with a neutral point of view then we have the right to share our beliefs with the world as much as anyone do. Adding to that, Internetism adheres to the sharing of knowledge which is a way we practice our religion; and since wikipedia's and our interests do not conflict, we shouldn't have any problems then, with the support of the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.
      • Wikipedia's mission is to also present articles about notable subjects. This has nothing to do with the first amendment - you want people to know about Internetism or whatever, put up your own website. You have failed to prove notability. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. The above argument is a bit ott. Dottore So 10:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Ironically for 60.48.75.108's argument, there is no evidence (presented by the article or otherwise) that people are actually exercising their freedom of religion in this way. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Delete. Uncle G 11:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: In response to the previous argument, the creator of the article in question, 60.48.75.108 (hereinafter refered to as "Bundein"), is a devout practitioner of the religious belief under presecution. Hence by the 1st Amendment and UN Declaration of Human Rights (hereinafter refered to as "the Law") it is a valid religious belief. Bundein 11:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In respose to the previous arguments' referal to Wikipedia is not a soapbox, the article in question is not a form of propaganda, self advocation nor advertising but instead an expresion of the creator's (Bundein's) religious beliefs.
• Delete as unverified. -Javeryt 11:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, yeah, and Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Non-notable, unverified, with a generous handful of original research thrown in for good measure. Delete -- The Anome 17:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Most of the commentors seem to ignore that Internetism has a different view from other "normal" religious/philosophical ideas, and hence bias on their views.
• Delete. And if the First Amendment arguments are put forward seriously -- I can't tell if they're kidding -- it's worth rereading the text. Even just rereading the first word of the First Amendment would answer this claim. Bikeable 18:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and Comment: The article is cruft, but beside that i'd like to warn the advocates of Wikipedia:No legal threats. Please do not break policies on that page again, you've been warned. Karmafist 18:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and comment: The First Amendment applies only to the federal government, not private entities such as the Wikimedia Foundation. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 20:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - though some of the arguments for keeping it might qualify as BJAODN. ;) — Haeleth Talk 22:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Joe DeCock.
• Keep. We are not threating wikipedia with legal action. We are not sueing anyone. We are only exercising our rights which has been written in law. The First Amendment and UN Declaration on Human Rights encompasses the whole US sovereign soil and and those countries who are members of the UN.
  • Yes, BJAODN this AfD per Haelth. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If that were correct, then the Boy Scouts of America wouldn't be allowed exclude gays. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • They Boyscouts of America holds the same Don't ask, don't tell policy as the US Armed Forces, "...prohibition of known or avowed homosexuals as leaders (both youths and adults), youths who refuse to affirm a "duty to God",". Thus your argument is baseless.
  • The First Amendment only applies to the Federal government. "Congress shall make no law..." Similar restrictions apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. As for the UN declaration, it is only "binding" on those governments that are members of the UN, not the citizens of those governments. Even then, it's not binding in that there is no legal recourse for failure to comply (although there certainly can be disastrous political and international relations fallout). Peyna 16:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The citizens are binded to the Law (refer above), indirectly through acts of Congress and the Executive (whom are responsible to uphold the Constitution). This includes for the United States and the legislative and executive branch of all nations that are signitories of the UN Charter.
      • Not wishing to prolong this obvious troll of a discussion any further, I suggest you actually spend some time learning how International Law and the United States Constitution work before suggesting that I (a private citizen) can violate your right to freedom of speech. Peyna 13:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this foolish attempt to mirror the fabled global success of Jagism. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:29, 26 October 2005 (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.