Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moggeism
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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moggeism
A religion made up by a teenager. Speedied once already, then put on prod, but an anonymous user most likely to be the author left a message on the page that appeared to contest the prod, so I'm taking it here. My vote is Delete as religioncruft, of course. Danny Lilithborne 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I would have speedied it on sight as well. Dina 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is neither verifiable nor notable. Cardamon 22:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I've left the creator a message - his reply should give a clue whether he's serious or not. Dave 22:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per everything said Hello32020 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- No speedy deletion criterion applies. The article says "can't a child express his beliefs in a religion today or what!". The answer is, in some countries, "yes". But that doesn't affect one iota what one may write at Wikipedia, which is not a bulletin board, not an advertising billboard, and not a general free wiki hosting service. It's an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. If you want to make up a religion and then write about it, your own web site is the place to do so, not Wikipedia. Self-professed original research. Delete. Uncle G 22:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Question Can you clarify? (I don't think we're in disagreement here, but I am truly curious to expand my understanding of speedy criteria) If I saw this article I would have speedied it under A7 (db-bio) as a "group of people" that doesn't assert the importance of the subject. My thinking would be that a religion neccessarily implies a group of followers, historical or current, and that without that assertion of notability, a religion such as this would qualify as a speedy. (Just so you know Uncle G, I've got your "on notability" on speed dial (ie. on my user page)) Cheers Dina 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- A religion has adherents. But a religion is a system of belief rather than a group of people. See also Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles and Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. Uncle G 11:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Question Can you clarify? (I don't think we're in disagreement here, but I am truly curious to expand my understanding of speedy criteria) If I saw this article I would have speedied it under A7 (db-bio) as a "group of people" that doesn't assert the importance of the subject. My thinking would be that a religion neccessarily implies a group of followers, historical or current, and that without that assertion of notability, a religion such as this would qualify as a speedy. (Just so you know Uncle G, I've got your "on notability" on speed dial (ie. on my user page)) Cheers Dina 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete like Uncle G said, Wikipedia isn't the only place to place things. A personal website will do quite nicely. ColourBurst 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This does lead to an interesting question though: No religious doctrines are verifiable. It's possible to verify their existence, but the mere fact of their posting is enough for that. So we have to consider the notability of a religion. This is where it gets most interesting imo: I don't think it's at all possible to come up with objective criteria to do that that would not lead to afd miscarriges of justice. Can someone point me to where to continue a discussion about this issue (pref. on my talk page)? Dave 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is conflating determining whether a religious doctrine is true with determining whether the article on that doctrine is verifiable by readers. Our Wikipedia:No original research policy is aimed squarely at religions, theories, and other ideas that have not been acknowledged by people other than their inventors and not entered the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 01:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This does lead to an interesting question though: No religious doctrines are verifiable. It's possible to verify their existence, but the mere fact of their posting is enough for that. So we have to consider the notability of a religion. This is where it gets most interesting imo: I don't think it's at all possible to come up with objective criteria to do that that would not lead to afd miscarriges of justice. Can someone point me to where to continue a discussion about this issue (pref. on my talk page)? Dave 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom and UncleG. NeoFreak 06:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - nonsense. And wikipedia is not a soapbox. BTLizard 11:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note This discussion was vandalized by the article's creator diff and reverted by me. Dina 17:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator, the vandalism does not help the case. Yamaguchi先生 23:42, 18 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.
