Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedism

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, obvious nonsense. Kusma (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedism

complete bollocks - WP:NOT a publisher of original research Fredrick day 00:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I see that this has already been deleted three times before but in a different form, so it's not a G4. I would suggest that this be added to Wikipedia:Protected titles/August 2007/List after deletion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy if the creator wishes to keep it as a Wikipedia essay, otherwise delete, original research and not an encyclopedia article. I assumed it was meant for project space when I saw it. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 00:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and BJAODN. Dbromage [Talk] 00:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy & delete per Zeibura. Cute, but not in the article namespace. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy or move to BJAODN – per zeibura. –Animum 00:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, original research. Has been moved to my personal BJAODN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Carlosguitar 08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced, original essay. NawlinWiki 14:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move to BJAODN This is funny! Jesse Viviano 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move to BJAODN It is more appropriate there.--PrestonH 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• The author, in saying that Wikipedists have no god, has obviously never read talk pages regarding Scientology, Christianity, Islam... well, you get the idea. Delete and BJAODN if necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move to BJAODN per Jesse and Preston. -WarthogDemon 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sadly, this is not funny. Because nearly anybody here could have written a funnier article about Wikipedia as a religion. Notably, Wikipedia is as close to an Internet church as I have ever witnessed. The funny thing is, this essay writes itself right here on AfD. The FIVE PILLARS, the holy commandments of WP:____, the sins of listcruft and incivility, the cautions of "assume good faith in nominations"... I love Wikipedia and I love AfD (some of you guys, I can live without). This, however, doesn't belong in BJAODN. Even a bad joke has to be funny to be a bad joke. Mandsford 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR--JForget 00:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - to BJAODN per above editors. This could be made to be funnier with little effort.
  • 'Comment what Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#BJAODN deletions. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:21, 14 August 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.