Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mooism (2nd nomination)

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

 _   _
((___))
[ x x ]
 \   /    Delete ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 (' ')
  (U)

[edit] MOOism

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

This was kept two years ago because some people had heard of it, but at 2700 google hits this is so not an internet phenomenon, not even if it gets a minor passing reference in a book that is talking about the Internet as a whole. >Radiant< 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and per WP:NEO. And you didn't have to overwrite the old discussion; you could have just made "Mooism (2nd nomination)". Overwrite fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: NN neo. Also, to expand on TenPoundHammer, not only could you have done that, you should have. See WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion for future reference. - Rjd0060 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I heard about this a few years ago. Yet I didn't believe it was notable then. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Mildly amusing, and yet another example of how the wikipedia community eventually realized it was working on an encyclopedia. Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• It's more than a minor passing reference in one book. A quick search reveals three books that deal with this subject. (The other two are ISBN 1405101814 and ISBN 0754630102.) Moreover, the one that is cited in the article devotes pages 169 to 171 to the subject of the "Church ov MOO". That's not a "passing mention" at all. Uncle G 03:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Google hits are not a test of notability and that's all the nominator seems to have since the last AFD. If there's a more general article about joke religions then it might be merged into that but the material should not be deleted. Colonel Warden 07:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Funny, but not article-worthy. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per UncleG and GoogleBooks search. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I discovered MOOism not through the internet, but via fidonet. Just because it doesn't have a strong presence on the world wide web doesn't make it non-notable. M Jason Parent (talk)
• Delete per Twsx. Can not thou find any better sources? Bearian (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Perfectly notable, although somewhat historical at this point. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 11:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Malinaccier and Twsx - neologistic, contravenes WP:NEO. Funny, but not archival-worthy. Not everything that deserves a line in parody religion should have its own article, and the idea that every parody religion in the list does is an instance of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, IMO. - Banazir (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Does not contravene WP:NEO since there are Reliable sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please cite which ones you mean. I looked at the self-published The Grate Book of MOO and, while it is also being published by the vanity press Lulu.com, it is still just a (longish) humor file put online many years ago. The other references definitely seem like passing ones to me. I'm seeing a lot of bare assertions of notability or lack thereof, and I would like to know whoch of the mentions to Mooism in reliable print references (not self-published; preferably peer-reviewd) you consider more than a passing one. - Banazir (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

L.L. Dawson & J. Hennebry, New Religions and the Internet: Recruiting in a New Public Space in L.L. Dawson (ed.) Cults & New Religious Movements, pp. 287-288. GoogleScholar citations plus Uncle G listed two books above and I linked to GoogleBooks above. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It may just be stupid and/or funny but if it's reliably sourced and able to be presented in NPOV, then only a bias would make it subject to deletion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is as relevant a religion as any other, and had many followers around the world. Wikipedia is an attempt at a public Encyclopedia, and as such, has become an important place for researchers into New Religious Movement (NRM) New_religious_movement, and this one certainly qualifies. Discordianism had been in existence for 20 years before it became as large a phenomenon as it is today, who knows what this NRM will become in 20 years. Farrellmcgovern —Preceding comment was added at 03:17, 9 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.