Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism (3rd nomination)

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 - use WP:DRV to recreate - UtherSRG (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism (3rd nomination)

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

Recreated, but much different then before, perhaps. Needs community approval. UtherSRG (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion history:

  • Keep - reliably sourced article. No reasons for delete given in nom. Addhoc 17:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep no reasons given for nom and the article's undoubtedly valid — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This was a recreated article. That's my reason for bringing it here for discussion. It was deleted twice before. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I am still not entirely convinced that this is not religioncruft. JuJube 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Ok, but I still don't see anything resembling a valid reason for deletion. Addhoc 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Agreed, this is not grounds for deletion. Walker9010 18:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, how about I change my vote to Speedy Delete as db-repost since a deletion review was never completed for this? JuJube 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the copy isn't substantially identical, in fact the copy is completely different. Addhoc 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That does not make it okay to recreate an article. You can't create a crap article, have it deleted, then create an article with the same name but different crap and say it can't be deleted. WP:DRV is the place to go, til then, this needs to be speedy deleted. JuJube 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the delete rationale of "crap" is covered by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Addhoc 19:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Comment I was being figurative. I wasn't saying the article is "crap" (on the other hand, I'm not saying it's not crap). I'm saying if an article gets deleted in an AfD and you want to recreate it, you need to go through WP:DRV first. JuJube 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the speedy criterion is "a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted."Addhoc 19:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also not convinced this isn't religioncruft. Are there any sources that say this belief system actually has followers? The article twists the facts: the source does not say there are 300 followers, it says the religion "claims 300 adherents" (italics mine). And two of the major sources, accounting for 4 citations, are unreliable (a blog and a geocities link). --Fang Aili talk 18:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: That bit of WP:V doesn't apply. How can a religion self-publish about itself? And there is no evidence that the website ([1]) was created by a founder of this religion or another authoritative source. Again, I ask for evidence that this is more than some "hip" club (see [2]). --Fang Aili talk 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The website ([3]]) is sited as authoritative by several of the widely published sources sited by this article. 206.188.56.88 19:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Circular verifiablilty? My delete vote stands. --Fang Aili talk 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete reposted deleted material. Take it to DRV, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - the copy isn't substantially identical, in fact the copy is completely different. Addhoc 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Correct - CSD doesn't apply. Neil (►) 13:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my vote back to regular Delete. Of course, this will probably get closed since the nominator didn't provide anything resembling a reason and we'll have to wait awhile, but this article should definitely go. JuJube 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the sourced material (that is, sourced from the external news sites) into The Matrix (series) as a small mention. Crystallina 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What reason are you giving to do so? I wouldn't suggest we merge Fundamentalist Christianity into the entry for the Bible, for example, so there must be more than the relationship between source and belief system. Jfarber 17:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep.This is sourced and interesting. There are clear analogies with some other religious beliefs. How many followers and if they are "true followers" does not matter.Biophys 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-enough referenced and appears to be noteworthy enough. Shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, truly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong, speedy, immediate Delete and salt. This should never have been reposted, the deletion as G4 should stand, it was reposted almost immediately after the WP:SALT was removed, deleteion was endorsed in March Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 19, Wikipedia is not "pitch till you win". This is crap-off-teh-Internets, the purported "religion" has a Geocities site FFS! Plus, the admin who undeleted it after I G4'd it was the same editor who created this page - self-evident WP:COI [4].
As to the article, let's check the sources shall we? The sum total of the mention of Matrixism in the Advertiser article was "...and even Matrixismn", i.e. a single namecheck as a passing example of something self-evidently absurd. "They're all God movies" covers it, in full, as: "Dr Possamai said the Matrix trilogy had spawned "Matrixism", a so-called movie-based religion that claims 300 adherents and has as one of its tenets a belief in the prophecy of "the One"." - in other words, a trivial mention, which reinforces the fact that there are virtually no adherents (unlike the Jedi one which registered in the UK census last time round, so is at leats a notable joke religion). Both the above are reports of a paper by Possamai, incidentally, so are not in any case truly separate sources and defintiely not primarily about Matrixism. This paper is itself cited as a reference. So that's three references which boil down to one, whihc is not primarily about Matrixism. The UWS coverage is, in full, ""Then you've got more recent films like 'The Matrix' spawning a new generation of hyper-believers. Matrixism combines chapters from an Aldous Huxley book with the Baha'i faith, and incorporates the use of drugs to 'reach another realm of reality'." So once again, trivial, nothign more than another example in a list of self-evidently ridiculous non-religions. I don't have access to the other purported sources, but based on this analysis of those sources I can access, they are probably all just passing mentions, failing the notability guideline; there is not, as far as I can tell, a single example of a non-trivial reliable source primarily or even largely devoted to this 300-member Geocities-hosted "religion". Get it gone, the sooner the better. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Your description of the re-posting and authorship of this article is wrong. It seems like an obvious attempt to discredit a Wikipedia administrator simple because you don't like the subject of an article. As for the references this article obviously clears the usual standards for article creation and notability. 71.112.17.109 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment agree with 71.112.17.109, Neil was clearly assuming good faith and to suggest this constitutes a breach of the conflict of interest policy is absurd. The speedy criterion only applies if the versions are "substantially identical", which they clearly aren't. Addhoc 12:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Neil was clearly assuming good faith A strange new meaning of "clearly" I was previously unaware of. The Wikilawyering, on the other hand, seems run of the mill. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What i'm seeing here is a somewhat niche religion being mentioned in a variety of publications, lending itself to notability - it's obviously important enough to be mentioned in those places, after all. Do the sources establish notability? Yes. Do we have enough information to make a neutral, useful article? Yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And what I'm seeing someone's joke being given pseudo-respectability by a Wikipedia article. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone's joke that's been noted in international press, so that kind of confers "pseudo-respectability." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually someone's joke being mentioned in passing by an academic writing a paper about the decline of religious faith, which in turn was mentioned in the press, a small number of whom appear to have used this one as an example of an obviously fake non-religion. Not quite the same thing. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. For an alleged internet hype, it gets a serious lack of google hits, hence it's not notable. WP:NFT. >Radiant< 12:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you get your information but last Google search I did listed over 16,000 websites. Google aside the subject of Matrixism has been addressed in several other verifiable sources. 71.112.17.109 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Precisely my point. 16000 googles is nothing for an internet hype. Compare "All your base" which gets half a million hits, plus more at alternate spellings. >Radiant< 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not comfortable with that conclusion from those facts, Radiant -- using the popularity of "all your base" as a standard for notability would kill thousands upon thousands of perfectly legitimate articles. If Matrixism were ONLY a meme, then maybe 16,000 hits is a bit low for article worthiness, I concur. But even Guy's overly harsh critique of the sources does not portray those sources as considering Matrixism of a meme, but a very, very small belief system with a small community of adherents. There are certainly churches with small congregations, and less google hits than 20k, which pass wikipedia muster. The article portrays Matrixism as a belief system with adherents; it is by that standard, not whether it is a popular meme, which I'd hope folks would consider the article's legitimacy. Jfarber 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alleged internet hype? Jesus! (or should I say "Nebuchadnezzar!") NikoSilver 12:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- even leaving aside the special problem of Category:Joke religions, you simply cannot write an article about a religion without scholarly sources, especially and starting with a reliable, third party, estimation if believership. --Pjacobi 13:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sourced to reputable secondary citations. Smee 13:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep. This article is well sourced with scholarly and popular mass published sources. Turning a blind eye to this indicates that perhaps "I don't like it" is more or less the real reason some are voting for deletion. There really shouldn't be a debate. It is obviously a well written and well sourced article. D166ER 13:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Looking at the sources, I don't see any evidence that this is notable. There appear to be two books referenced that make passing comments mentioning this, just as an illustration to the basic concept that films can spawn "religious" groups. There's a University article that paraphrases one of these books. Then there's a blog posting and a Geocities website that aren't reliable sources at all. Finally, there is a news article that interviews someone who appears to be connected with the aforementioned University article, which states the religion "claims 300 adherents". Nowhere is there any justification for that claim in any of the references, not that having 300 adherents would in itself make it notable enough for a Wikipedia article anyway. Will (aka Wimt) 13:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Guy's analysis of the sources is persuasive. Thatcher131 13:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, with the disclaimer that I was the admin who moved the new article into articlespace. The article is referenced and valid. I don't care how much sand Guy has in his cooch about it, the article wasn't a recreation of deleted content, so speedy deletion doesn't apply. The article is substantially different to that which came before (and was rightly deleted). It's referenced satisfactorily, it's NPOV, it asserts notability. I realise that Guy thinks it's stupid, but this isn't JzGipedia, yet. Neil (►) 13:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Terrible... The NPR source is just basically rehashing the Possamai source. There is a blog that isn't a Reliable Source. One is a user-made geocities page (the "official Matrixism" page). The sources just are not that good. Is there some fake, crappy religion that "people really adhere to"? One of the better sources says that it's not serious. Besides not being notable, this is just a recreation of an already deleted article. Until it can be proven from a reliable source that followers actually believe in Matrixism (and are not just members because Itz sooper-D-duper coolz!!1!), delete (again), salt (again), and banish sneaky recreators to outside the walls of Zion. --Ali'i 13:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nor is it NFT-pedia. In any case, if it's so obvious, what was the with the steps you took to dodge WP:DRV? Should have been a slam-dunk, right? --Calton | Talk 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Guy. Joke religion, with grasping-at-straws refs, utterly (and deliberately, it looks like) bypassing WP:DRV for recreation. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    It isn't a recreation. So it doesn't need to go through DRV. Neil (►) 13:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    It is most definitely a recreation, after the earlier deletion debates. >Radiant< 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    CSD G4 states (an admin may delete a) copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. The content was not substantially identical. And the reasons for deletion were its poor referencing; this was resolved in the new page. I don't understand how this could be construed as a recreation. Neil (►) 14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've found and added another reference, from The Scotsman. Hopefully a daily newspaper with a circulation of almost 60,000 counts as a non-trivial source. Unless certain editors don't like the article, in which case we could have it written in fifteen-mile high letters on the moon and it wouldn't be a reliable source. Neil (►) 14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I see nothing (including the Scotsman reference) that isn't a paragraph-or-two reference or name drop. That's trivial sourcing. Will consider changing my position if non-trivial independent sourcing can be found or listed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    Two paragraphs in a national newspaper is trivial? Really? I give up. Neil (►) 14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Welcome to the twisted world of Wikipedia "notability," Neil. Cold cuts are in the back, and make sure to grab your door prize. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've read the Scotsman article and I still don't think that it justifies this article. I agree, the Scotsman has a large circulation (as does the Sydney Morning Herald which was already cited in the article), but that doesn't justify notability. This particular article was written by a guest writer in the "living" section (which is more of a light reading magazine). It is designed as light-hearted reading, nothing more. Need I mention that everything that is mentioned in a national newspaper isn't by definition suitable for an article on Wikipedia. It also says that the group "now claims to have 500 genuine followers" but once again this claim is not backed up. Will (aka Wimt) 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and where did that writer get his information? From a geocities website. Everyone here knows that anyone can create a geocities site, right? Nothing on the website even claims authoritative knowledge or insight. It doesn't even give a name. This is not a reliable source, and any "sources" based on that geocities page is likewise not reliable. --Fang Aili talk 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would consider a couple paragraphs in a newspaper trivial. It's just not enough for a comprehensive article. It may be that at some point in the future this will gain some more detailed attention. If so, we can write an article then, it'll still be done by the deadline. If not, it'll just be one more obscure religious movement faded into time. But for now, I just don't see that this has gained any more mention than as a quick bit of humor, curiosity, or slow-news-day filler. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on all the sources we could write the article this way. Matrixism is a spoof religion based on the Matrix movie trilogy that was founded on the internet in 2003 and claims 500 adherents.' End of line. Nothing else can be verified independently; not its beliefs, scriptures, holy days, or anything else about it. All the sources listed add up to "Spoof religion that claims..." Is that enough? Thatcher131 14:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like the same blather from two years ago. Should be speedied as a matter of course. —Xezbeth 14:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Still delete - The remarkable energy and enthusiasm behind the spirited defense, re-creation, and vigorous use of deletion review and community patience aside, the sources still don't establish that this is anything real. I know there are folks out there who would love to put Matrixism and Jedi-ist in their various files, but for there to be an article here, there need to be multiple non-trivial references elsewhere or else this is original research that is inherently un-verifiable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for something some guy came up with one day after school. Well, unless that guy is Albert Einstein I guess, and the thing he came up with is the theory of relativity as a result of trying to put carbonation into beer... but there's no evidence that this happened here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is a textbook example of something which does not belong in an encyclopedia. There is no evidence presented that anyone actually believes in it. There are no interviews with purported adherents, no independent sources to back up the claim that there's 500 members and generally nothing to suggest that anything the Geocities site claims is true. The whole thing is a joke, and not a very funny one at that. By treating this thing as if it's some sort of actual religion, we make a mockery of ourselves. FCYTravis 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable and poorly sourced (seemingly unsourcable at this point). Most sources are unreliable (geocities), the ones that are reliable only make trivial mention. --Minderbinder 16:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Given that this entire thing is based off a religion on a Geocities site, what happens if tomorrow, someone throws up another anonymous Geocities site claiming to be home of the Real Fundamentalist Matrixism (tm), with 10,000 adherents. Do we publish that there's a massive fundamentalist split in the Matrix? If not, why not? If we're going to source Geocities free pages for a religion, how can one possibly say that one Geocities site is any more reliable than another? It's an invitation to nonsense. FCYTravis 16:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- given that the majority of the article would be viable if we deleted the geocities citation and left only the half dozen legitimate, academic sources currently cited...perhaps the invitation to nonsense has been based on a mistaken read of the article, or of the older, not currently up-for-AfD geocities-referenced version of this article (which predates the academic texts)? 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Matrixism or The Path of the One is a spoof religion inspired by the motion picture trilogy The Matrix, conceived by an anonymous group in the summer of 2004." Need I say more?! The undeleting admin is doubtlessly connected to this group and is putting his desire to advance this silly group above his obligations as an administrator to the encyclopedia. It's utterly shameless. Besides, there's only one thing I hate more than fake religions. Can you guess what it is? --Cyde Weys 16:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • An interesting and exceedingly inappropriate and cruel ad hominem attack. I, too, have adopted this article; I am Jewish, my family is Unitarian. Topic viability should be considered based ont he article and topic, with citations having significant weight in viability; other than the geocities red herring, there are now several academic citations int he article. Do you dismiss the legitimate sources mentioned in the article? Also, not sure where the word spoof came from; if it's in the article now, I suspect it was a sad attempt to dismiss the topic inapropriately? Jfarber 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, abuse of process and COI violation to have the same person who created the article undelete it an close the AfD. No reliable sources. Come on, this "religion" lives on a geocities page. Corvus cornix 18:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the abuse of process was using a speedy delete which only applies if the versions are "substantially identical". Also, Neil didn't create the article, it was developed by several editors in his user space, and the press coverage is clearly reliable. Last year, when I dared to suggest that Matrixism deserved a mention, I was accused of being its founder, the accusations that Neil is "undoubtedly" connected are equally absurd. Addhoc 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pop culture internet meme, hosted on Geocities, with less than impressive source quality? We see enough of these on CAT:CSD already. Sandstein 19:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note the several NON-geocities, published, notable academic works cited in the article. Jfarber 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is both unnecessarily cruel and dismisses that there are now several legitimate sources cited in the article which pass wikipedia's standard for notability. Did you LOOK at the article? Also, as a self-POV check: do you not believe IN Matrixism, or do you just not personally believe Matrixism to be a legitimate, albeit small, community of self-proclaimed believers? Jfarber 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete independent coverage is too trivial to justify an encyclopedia article. — Scientizzle 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 6 legitimate, academic resources cited is "trivial"? This is a standard I have not encountered before, but I'd be happy to be corrected if there is some wikipedia page which explores, say, topic viability... :-) Jfarber 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete & salt per Guy. Pete.Hurd 22:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Ironically, I came to this debate after someone at Wikipedia talk:Notability complained the guideline has to be changed because it would call for deletion of this article. Looks like it's working perfectly. nadav 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and comment: Since the "old" article was published, no less than 6 academic, legitimate sources have been published, all of which are referenced in the current article, which legitimately consider Matrixism a religion. The pursuit of the geocities source as cruft being described above by many is a red herring, as is the implication that, because the article was deleted twice for good reasons, that the current article has not demonstrated that the two primary resons have become moot. To wit: 1. the subject of this article has become legitimized by the publication of multiple legitimately citable sources since the original AfD on this article, and 2. the article is now written and cited much more properly than the original disaster. Jfarber 17:54, 5 May 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.