Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womadhism

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 Delete. WP:SNOW kingboyk 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Womadhism

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

Delete Contested prod. patently absurd nonsense. Author claims it's legitimate becuase he is trying to spread the word, which wikipedia is not for. Unsourced, unverfiable, non-notable. The Kinslayer 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• please do not delete page. this is not a random meaningless inside joke. this is a belief system i am offering to others to consider. its potential is not yet fully known. there is no reason for this page to be deleted. it has value and should not be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottydont23 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Oh, please delete this nonsense immediately! Completely agree with the above comments. Robinson weijman 11:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - preposterous nonsense, and doesn't stand a chance of being retained, along with all the other WP:NFT "religions" that have been through AfD. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I second deletion under WP:SNOW. I couldn't figure a speedy category, so I prodded the article. Scottydont (the articles creator) contested the prod with the same reason he's given above, so I've moved to AfD per procedure, and to shut him up explain the foolishness of his article by showing him just what everyone thinks of bullshit silliness like this round here. The Kinslayer 11:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Careful of WP:BITE there - I suspect this is just a misguided young user trying Wikipedia out, and even if there was a malicious/disruptive intent WP:CIVIL still holds. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - self-created religion - Skysmith 12:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is absurd, sense-free pseudoreligious rubbish.--Anthony.bradbury 12:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• The main issue with this article is that it tends to promote Womadhism as opposed to describing it. However, this could be easily fixed with a few simple edits. In any case, the general perception that a philosophy is utter rubbush does not preclude it from classification. Wikipedia is not intended for debate as to the validity of beliefs. It is an open access encyclopedia. --Albatross thief— Albatross thief (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Last time I checked, even philosophies were requried to be attributable to sources, and Wikipedia was not for made-up things. Has this changed since I last checked or something Albatross? The Kinslayer 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Philosophies are derived from human thought, not research. The idea that a philophy can be traced to a single point source is quite absurd. However, you are right in that this article should be sourced to the text from which it was derived. -Albatross thief— Albatross thief (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Absurd or not, WP:ATT is not an optional extra. If you disgaree with it, take it up on the talk page there. And given this 'philosophy' started 3 days ago, I severly doubt any sources exist out side the mind of the article creator. 0Ghits for a start with the -wikipedia parameter. The Kinslayer 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And look how an unregistered editor changed the date of the "religion"'s creation to 11th March 2005 after this discussion has started. I guess it's the time to close it. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as vanity/nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 13:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to WP:AGF, but you can't help looking at Albatosses contributions and wondering... The Kinslayer 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:SOAPBOX amongst other problems. -- Whpq 16:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a definite case for getting this deleted under WP:SNOW. What do you lot think? The Kinslayer 16:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• 20-Mule-Team Delete and sow the earth with salt: OMFG. Fails WP:ATT, WP:OR, WP:NN, WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW, WP:BULLSHIT and probably a few others along the way as well. This must be the world's record for Wikipedia rules breaking. RGTraynor 17:06, 15 March 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.