Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W.M.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all 4. CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)

[edit] S.W.M., Theology of Sanjan, The Theology of Sanjan and Sanjan (religion)

Two three four articles on a tiny religion based in the San Fernando Valley and its founder. Not notable/promotion/vanity. silsor 19:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. --Xcali 19:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --WAvegetarian 19:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on the user's past contributions (User:24.126.43.134), he is likely the founder or member himself. The name seems to be based on the Sanjan community article this anon wrote. Delete. --Scimitar 19:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --W i k i a c c 19:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is B. Mcfarlane, a disciple of S.W.M.. It is correct, this is the computer from which myself and other followers often use. Before considering deletion, please contact me at {removed because of unprecedented exposure to this page} There are other followers who can testify in its defense. unsigned edit by 24.126.43.134 (talk · contribs)

If your friends want to argue against the deletion of these page, they should do so right here. silsor 19:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is S. Halifax, another follower. Please do not delete. We are a small but growing sect that desires exposure. unsigned edit by 24.126.43.134 (talk · contribs)

  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The Wikipedia reports on things that are notable. It is not a place to create publicity. --Xcali 19:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG Delete nn and ne, especially in light of preceding quote. This site is not called Wiki-Proselytizing. There is an enormous, well established network of places to "spread knowledge" of little know sects and and products; it's called Advertising. Kevin/Last1in 19:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Theologycruft and a sockmagnet. — P Ingerson (talk) 19:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What they said. Wikipedia is not a PR-wire. NTK 19:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is Halifax. I have taken back my previous assertion. We do not wish to advertise, but understand that Wikipedia is place to come for answers. If one hears talk of Sanjan on the street, this is a wonderful place to come for answers. More defense is on its way. Give us a chance, we are not looking for money, or even followers.

Further, please excuse earlier vandalism by this IP. Teenagers have access to this computer and have been reckless.

unsigned edit by Bndr McFarlane (talk · contribs)
  • Comment - clarification of my 'Stong Delete' vote, using approved Wiki shorthand from Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion: Theo-cruft, ne, nn, POV, promotional, advertorial, Wikispam, too secret. That's like half the list of good reasons to delete an article, especially in light of the author commentary. Kevin/Last1in 20:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Why would a "highly secretive" group desire publicity on WP? --Xcali 20:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - why are "McFarlane" and "Halifax" editing from the same account? silsor 20:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The exact pillars of thought are known only to followers, though we understand the concern and have and can continue to adjust the articles accordingly. We dont desire publicity. Halifax has access to this computer as well.

unsigned edit by Bndr McFarlane (talk · contribs)
  • Comment - They are a "small sect that desires publicity" but they "do not wish to advertise" and "are not looking for money or even followers"? We can have an article about this group when there is anyone talking about Sanjan on the street, besides the one or two people apparently behind it. NTK 20:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Basically, non-notable. While I can sympathize with your group's desire to be known, there are too many small groups for each to be notable. Also, a secret group cannot rightly have an Encyclopedia entry about it, now can it? -- Cabhan 20:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • here is a signature for you nitpickers--Bndr McFarlane 20:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • deleteDunc|☺ 20:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

do not delete these pages. i am a follower of the religion of sanjan, it is real. do not be ignorant. please do not delete.

SANJAN IS REAL!!!! I BELIEVE!!!! DONT DELETE!!!!! unsigned edit by 64.60.54.131 (talk · contribs)

  • Sanjan, though it has not yet been recognized by congress as an official religion, is in fact, a real religion, as has been outlined by one S.W.M. according to his spiritual vision. To delete the articles on Sanjan is to undermine the spiritual beliefs of said S.W.M., as well as every other follower of Sanjan. Do not delete Sanjan. unsigned edit by 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
  • Sanjan is a real religion. I am a devout follower, and it hurts to know that there are people trying to delete the pages that mean so much to me. Do not delete, believe! unsigned edit by 69.234.196.100 (talk · contribs)
  • Yes. Yes it is quite a religion. What I see in the sanjan followers is no different then what i see in christian and jewish followers. This religion is a way of life and if you take this away from these people, you are essentially stealing their soul. Thats how you get terrorists... unsigned edit by 71.129.48.32 (talk · contribs)
  • Comment: There's a big difference between Sanjan and Judeo-Christianity. It's a case of sheer numbers. Over 1/6th of the world's population is a believe in the Judeo-Christian faiths. Removing a Wikipedia entry steals someone's soul? Hmmm...I must remember that when removing vanity articles. Okay, who deleted the article on Al Qaeda? That must be what caused the September 11 attack. --Xcali 20:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The previous five anonymous voters have <5 edits, and all in Sanjan related articles. I would suggest either sock- or meat- puppetry, and point out that the existence of the religion is not being debated here; rather it's relevance to Wikipedia and the world as a whole.--Scimitar 20:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • i have heard of sanjan and i know people that follow. unsigned edit by 207.200.116.6 (talk · contribs)
    • Comment: User has a history of vandalism. --Scimitar 20:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I would kindly like to point out in response to Xcali's comment that Judaism and Christianity began as small faiths as well. Sanjan is one of the fastest growing belief systems in America. I have already addressed the vandalism issue, and find it utterly irrelevant that the gambols of a 14-year-old nephew on this machine be connected to this highly serious discussion.--Bndr McFarlane 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Counter-arguments seem to suggest that deletion of the article will destroy the religion... in which case, there will be nothing to have an article on... in which case, there never should have been an article... in which case, there should not be an article now. (Note: this vote is now from the future, when there is no such article, from when it was/will be cast backwards in time). -- BD2412 talk 21:03, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  • Where exactly do counter-arguments suggest that deletion of the article will destroy the religion? Sanjan will remain strong and growing whether or not the article exists. The question is whether or not you want to undermine and show a complete lack of respect for the spiritual beliefs of others by deleting the article. The issue is freedom of religion, plain and simple. unsigned edit by 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
  • You're free to have your religion. You're just not free to place an article about it in the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Xcali 21:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: True, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all started small and grew over thousands of years into major forces in world events. You should probably check back with Wikipedia in 3900 years, 2010 years, and 1490 years (respectively) and resubmit your article. {struck with apologies for the snide tone.} At this point, it is still non-encyclopedic, POV and advertorial. Also, as to the "freedom of religion", Wikipedia is NOT a US government institution, it is an international collective enterprise; it has specific rules which detail what kinds of material are appropriate. The reason that your articles are on this page is so the worldwide Wiki community can collectively determine if they meet those guidelines. Kevin/Last1in 21:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find the comment about "check[ing] back with Wikipedia in 3900 years, 2010 years, and 1490 years" to be offensive and an insult to my intelligence, considering that, as far as I know, no human could possibly live this long. Perhaps you should save your jokes and sarcasm for amateur night at your local comedy club, or maybe even to impress some ladies at the pub. Otherwise, your apparently witty comments have no place in this serious discussion. In addition to this, I fail to see how the articles are non-encyclopedic, POV or advertorial. However, the articles are informational, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Wiki has any policy prohibiting information. unsigned edit by 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)

  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Xcali 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I would also suggest that if you took offense to those comments, you need to develop a thicker skin. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either, and your religion gets no media coverage anywhere, as far as I can tell. Feel free to prove me wrong. Now, because WP:NOT a crystal ball, we can't peer into the future and see if someday you might be important to many people, because right now you evidently are not. Thus, an article will be only written if and when your religion becomes noteworthy. --Scimitar 21:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • wow, my little articles have sparked quite an exciting discussion, for better or worse. thanks for the support, for those who have been supporting, and even for the anti-Sanjan responses, for your continued interest on this topic. --Bndr McFarlane 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: No-one here is anti-Sanjan. We're just anti-articles-about-Sanjan. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, so far we know that Wikipedia is not a) a soapbox and b) a crystal ball. I might also point out that it is not c) a state of mind or d) a toaster. The list of what Wikipedia isn't could go on and on. Unfortunatley, what Wikipedia is not, is also not relevant to this conversation. Please define "noteworthy," because I know a great deal of people who consider Sanjan to be very noteworthy indeed. unsigned comment from 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)

  • Comment In a way, it's up to each user of the Wikipedia to define it for themself. There are guidelines, but in the end, they are just guidelines, not rules. The Google test is one popular method. --Xcali 22:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I respect your opinions, and appreciate your support, user, but the purpose here is not to perpetuate arguments. If the Wikipedia team choose to be unresponsive to (or even prejudiced toward) our burgeoning faith, they have every right. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's true, and if the tides of the modern age swell against us, then we must continue to look to the skies with or without the knowledge of the online community. --Bndr McFarlane 21:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand, and I apologize for my increasingly hostile responses. I just get so upset with this complete lack of respect for our faith, the articles of which have as much a right to be here as every other article on Wikipedia. unsigned edit by 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
    • Please explain this right. I don't understand it. silsor 22:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • What about your lack of respect for the Wikipedia, its community, and its "beliefs"? --Xcali 22:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "Right" was perhaps a poor word-choice. I simply believe that if you are going to delete the articles on Sanjan than you might as well just start deleting everything else as well.unsigned comment from 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
    • If I didn't respect the Wikipedia, then I wouldn't be here arguing for these articles in the first place.unsigned comment from 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
      • Comment: Please respect Wikipedia by signing your comments 69.231.58.181. Thank you. --Durin 22:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Clarification: Wikipedia is neither for or against any religion. It is non-denominational. However, Wikipedia strives only to include information that can be verified by independent sources. Since I can't find any, and its adherents here have provided none, I have no choice but to support the removal of the articles in question. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the religion, which are in fact non-existent. --Scimitar 22:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i recieved this message in support from a user: "User talk:24.126.43.134 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

please save. i believe. i really believe." --Bndr McFarlane 22:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • My name is Tomas, and Sanjan has saved my life. I tried Christianity, Judaism, even Zen buddhism, but it wasn't until a monk at the Zen Center of Los Angeles referred me to the religion of Sanjan that i found something that really spoke to me. unsigned comment by 68.66.102.239 (talk · contribs)
  • Independent sources, please. The beliefs of anonymous individual adherents (or even non-anonymous ones) have no bearing on the discussion. --Scimitar 22:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, let's back up a bit. Most Wikipedians (including Jimbo in his Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance post) feel there are two essential elements for any encyclopedic article: Verifiability and NPOV. Is it possible to create a Sanjan article that passes both tests? IMHO, you cannot write one that passes either. The religion is "secret" and "exclusive", so verification is only possible by referring to Sacred Texts (a tautology), or by deferring to adherents (which violates objectivity). Since only adherents will be able to effectively edit Wikipedia articles, POV is inescapable. Until such time as Sanjan becomes a discernable, well-known influence in society or a topic of wide public discourse, I do not think encyclopedic articles can be created. PS: The list of things Wikipedia is not is found here. Also, I am not anti-Sanjan. I have as much respect for your faith as any other; I just have no faith in the encyclopedic value of your article. Kevin/Last1in 22:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • in response, the post "i have heard of sanjan and i know people that follow. unsigned edit by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs)" from this anonymous user, who is obviously not an "adherent", gives an objective verification of Sanjan's relevence. --24.126.43.134 22:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • But the comment of an anonymous poster is not Verifiable evidence. How can we verify that he/she/it(?) was telling the truth? — P Ingerson (talk) 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Something just doesn't feel right about deleting this article... let it sit for a few months, let the articles evolve a bit, and revisit this one later if necessary. We could probably do with merging/redirecting the articles. (I don't know about that copied/pasted text in there, though. Do religious texts count as copyvios?) Almafeta 23:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable nonsense. Gamaliel 23:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Vanity, hoax, near-nonsense, unverifiable, self-promotional, excessive sockpuppets: pick any you like. "an obscure school of thought that involves rigorous sky-watching and, by some accounts, cannabis use" pretty much says it all. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. Even without the sock-puppets, it's advertisement/self-promotion. --Etacar11 23:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. To counter the arguement about the christian/judeo thing: If Wikipedia had existed at the time of christ, we wouldn't have had an article on him either. Wikipedia doesn't care how enlightened you are, how groundbreaking your religion is, or even how much you beg. What we want in an article is some objectivity, some encyclopedic worth, and a healthy slice of humble pie. I see none of that here. humblefool® 23:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it is this very animosity that christ recieved at the hands of the Pharisees. do some self-realization before making assumptions. Sanjan is spreading fast; even established underground hip hop artist McTimbo now looks to the skies. --24.126.43.134 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Who? Isn't "estabilshed underground" an oxymoron? --Xcali 00:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Christ and Christians faced animus due to their beliefs. IMHO, you are facing resistance from people who are unwilling to see an objective encyclopaedia hijacked to provide free advertising for your organisation. Animus, if any, seems directed towards your commentary in this forum, where you persist in disregarding the mores and customs of this community. Note that all "deleters" used valid Wiki criteria and formatting for their posts; all but one of the "keepers" did not (suggesting, not proving, that active members of this community are not impressed with the encyclopaedic value of these articles). Just an opinion. Kevin/Last1in 01:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wrt Almafeta better to delete the article now and allow it back in if Sanjan still exists in 5 years --202.173.129.184 01:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete!!! My eyes!!! Now let's put it this way - I start a religion called the Theology of Abrakadabra the Benevolent, rush-produce a 'sacred text' on the magnitude of "in the begginning god cr8d da haevens and da eath", claims to be a reclusive religion that I want everyone to know about. Someone put my article on vfd. Would it survive? - In other words: Non notable, vanity, POV, and I'm afraid, a bit Looney Tunes. (But that's just my personal opinion). -Hmib`

Delete vanity verging on nonsense (I will go their hell if I must). The point made about Christ not qualifying for an entry at the time he was preaching in the temple is an insightful one here. -Splash 02:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with our posts, but to mock us on the order of a cartoon show is humiliating and a sacrilege. We are deeply offended by this disrespect.--24.126.43.134 02:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am awaiting the righteous wrath of thy god, Abrakadabra the Benevolent. Delete! Delete! And again I say DELETE! -Hmib 03:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongest Delete and block recreation from obvious vandals. Xoloz 06:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, church vanity. JamesBurns 06:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Scimitar and User:Last1in. Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable and strive for NPOV. Unless independent sources can be provided this isn't going to happen. We can't even proof Sanjan is growing at the rate you state. Note: People, please be considerate and don't mock with someone's religion. Witty vote comments don't belogn here. - Mgm|(talk) 08:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong strong delete. Cultcruft. Ban those responsible. — Phil Welch 03:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - A Google search for "Sanjan religion" (no quotes) returns 827 sites. As far as I can tell, they seem to refer to a kingdom of Sanjan, which is a part of the Zoroastrian religion. That said, I believe that your religion exists, and I believe that you follow it closely, and I believe that to you, it is your religion. I also believe that those who are mocking you are wrong in doing so. However, it cannot be argued that your religion, due to secrecy, cannot be verified in regards to any information that we put down. Its notability to the general world is not significant (again, I quote the Google search). I (and I hope we) are not anti-Sanjan, merely anti-unnotable articles. When your religion has grown and is more notable for an encyclopedia, I have no doubt that an article will be allowed. -- Cabhan 17:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.