Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primitive Yahwism

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. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primitive Yahwism

Delete Suspected hoax. Google search brings up 34 hits, most of which are actually talking about the actual Yahwism, in Primitive times rather than any kind of modern version. Does not assert notability and is not verifiable, nor does it have any sources/references. pm_shef 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 20:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Verify. Maybe we can try and get an expert on the subject before deleting? Grafikm_fr 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources, unverifiable, and Google turns up nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources seem to be available. Looks like OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MonkeeSage 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article all makes strict sense and I'm convinced it is not a hoax. But notability and verifiability appear to be real issues. Lambiam^Talk 02:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Verify - I can vouch for it's authenticity (actually being part of the movement) and it will not be found on Google as it is not a movement that publishes many webpages. As such I feel that it should not be discriminated against in that respect. If sources need to be furnished I can add them. --Steve Caruso 02:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If you can provide reputable sources, I'll withdraw my nomination for AfD. - pm_shef 03:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment no one said it has to be web-pages - it is just that the internet is usually a good source for phenomena too new to be found in scholarly journals or major magazines and newspapers. Certainly, if there are articles in academic journals, major magazines, or an enecylopedia of religions, or something like that (i.e. not from an exlusively partisan or in-house source), that would be a verifiable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Steve Caruso's statement above is virtually an admission that the whole article violates NOR and probably NPOV. It is a vanity page. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Will reconsider upon presentation of verifiable establishment of notability. Lambiam^Talk 21:51, 19 April 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.