Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mundism

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 Speedy delete A7 (notability not asserted) by Resolute (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 18:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mundism

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

Another non-notable religion, possibly made up in one day. Only 6 ghits, none of them relevant. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 15:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. The previous version of the article said it is a "religion that was built by Matt Shank in 2007". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Repost? Checked. So tagged. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 16:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per both of the above. WP is not for things made up one day. Xymmax (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This version doesn't quite meet speedy criteria but is an obvious hoax, can probably be deleted by acclamation. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No references. Incoherent. No corroboration in Google. I would have put speedy on it if I had seen it first. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Lockley (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Throwing my snowball in the mix, can't find anything that confirms this isn't made up. Pharmboy (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The praise a deity deemed "Onan"? Reckon that's called Onanism.... Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nearly Christmas - and look, it's starting to snow! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Onanists do not worship Onan. And it is not even the same one. You say The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is NOT made up? It has been kept. This religion is just as believable as Christianity, because it is true. There's nothing to be questioned. It is faith in society. If Mundism is deleted, so should Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other "made-up" religions. Mattshank (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Matt: it's not that it's made up - of course all religions are made up! It's just not notable yet, is all. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Bingo What makes a religion 'notable' isn't how true it is, it's how much they get in the collection plate how many followers and independent reports from 3rd parties. Flying Spagetti Monster isn't a religion, it is a reverse test and application of Russell's teapot that has citations to demonstrate it is notable. Pharmboy (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It's certainly not made up, however. I'll admit. There's probably not more than 2000 people who follow Mundism, but we are here and we're just as much of a religion as any others. I can see why you think it should be deleted, but it's frustrating how parody religions can get on Wiki, but real ones can't. I respect your decision if you delete it, but at what point can I then try adding it again? Mattshank (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Other religions have 501(c) tax exempt status, even most cults do as well. Have anything in this area to demonstrate notability? If not, it would at best be a non-notable philosophy. Pharmboy (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment So it's not notable because we don't care to get freebies? Sorry if it's too careless for you. Mattshank (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's for real. Mattshank (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So, it was claimed, was the Church of Reality (AfD discussion). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a soapbox and it is not a free web hosting service. It doesn't exist to document the undocumented, or to promote ideas that have yet to escape their creators and become an acknowledged part of the corpus of human knowledge. We are here to document human knowledge, not to create it. Until such time that you can prove that your religion has been properly and independently documented in depth by multiple third parties with reputations for fact checking and accuracy, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 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.