Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parody religion (2nd nomination)

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 keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parody religion[edit]

The article appears to be nothing but synthesis and original research. Although the article is about three years old, none of the article's few sources seem to be about the topic itself. Rather, the editors have cobbled together articles about the differenct subjects, i.e. Jedi showing up as a religion in censuses and the Flying Spagetti Monster, to create this article. This is synthesis plain and simple. If the subject were truly notable, there would be multiple reliable sources on the subject itself. Mamalujo (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - notable - also, the article was created in January 2004 and survived a comparable AfD in 2005 Ian Cairns (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note - an article's age and previous AfD results aren't really a valid argument for keeping/deleting an article in a deletion discussion. Consensus can change, especially in 4 years. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Side side note - true, but if it were created 5¼ years ago and nominated for deletion 4 years ago, it's not about three years old. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article certainly meets the notability requirements. Btw, in order for there to be synthesised information there needs to be an instance of concluding something unsourced but using sourced premises. Please point to the OR parts of the article. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article could use some work, but the subject is notable. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep listing specific instances of a broader cultural phenomenon is not synthesis. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there may be some synthesis here, but very little. The article mostly needs additional sources, which I think should be available. It could also do with some cleanup, but that is not a deletion argument. LadyofShalott ^Weave 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable topic, as can be seen from the sources. Also, using diverse sources does not imply synthesis. LK (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable topic and useful resource for people looking for information on religious parodies. Kiore (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For those of you saying the subject is notable, can anyone come up with reliable sources that talk directly about the subject of "parody religions"-- not about FSM, or another one in particular, but about the subject "parody religions". If we can't come up with that, then the subject "parody religions" is wide open to original research and being our own synthesis of the different religions that we are calling parody religions. For example, if I have a reliable source that talks about how shoes cause death, and another reliable source that talks about how hats cause death, then those two individual subjects are notable, but if I make an article about how clothing causes death, with only those two sources, then that is original research and a synthesis. I would need reliable sources on the subject of "clothing causes death" for Wikipedia article on that subject. So, I haven't gone looking yet, but can anyone find sources for the term/concept of "parody religion"? If sources can be found, great; if not, this would most likely be better as a list of the religions. At least, that is how I read WP:OR -- specifically WP:SYNTH -- or is my logic faulty? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see now:
  - Kibology is one of several parody religions that are popular on the Internet.
    — Michael H. Peckham (1998). "Internet". In William H. Swatos and Peter Kivisto (ed.). Encyclopedia of religion and society. Rowman Altamira. p. 237. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
  - In 2002, Yahoo Groups had 514 parody religion discussion forums.
    — T. Matthew Ciolek (2004). "Online Religion". In Hossein Bidgoli (ed.). The Internet Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. John Wiley and Sons. p. 803. ISBN 047122202X.
  - In 2001, fans of Discordianism actually set up an electronic mail campaign to try to persuade Yahoo to take it out of the parody religions category in its search engine and list it with the "real" religions. One correspondent tried to convince Yahoo that it was practicing religious discrimination.
    —David Chidester (2005). Authentic Fakes. University of California Press. p. 199. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
  - Last Thursdayism, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Pastafarianism are all parody religions.
    —Matt Millham (2008-06-15). "Faith takes strange forms on the Web". Stars and Stripes.
  - Pastafarianism and the other parody religions that it shares a "crowded stage" with have precursors in ideas such as Russell's teapot.
    — Nadja Popovich (2007-11-05). "Don't play with your food, worship it". The McGill Daily. Vol. 97, no. 18.
- Yes. There is a grouping here made by people other than us, long before Wikipedia even existed (note the date on Peckham). There's also a larger umbrella subject, of religions and Internet, too (c.f. Peckham and Ciolek — the latter runs to some 13 pages, with an extensive bibliography). Uncle G (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Thanks for the sources. That takes care of my misgivings. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Participants here keep making the conclusory statement that the article is notable or that there is no OR or SYN, but without ANY support. None of the cited sources in the article are on the subject of the article itself. I even went through the first ten pages of google results and could not find a single reliable source on the subject. I am surprised at the votes to keep when there is not a single source on the subject itself. Although "parody religion" is a term which is used, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide.". I would suggest that this is an idiomatic phrase which belongs in Wiktionary. As to the synthesis, the very conclusion that all the subtopics belong under the term parody religion is a synthesis. For example, the only source for Jedi is a primary source which does not say it is a parody religion. I would also suggest the closing administrator ignore the votes which do not provide any support.Mamalujo (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This article clearly meets WP:PG. Keahapana (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree that the nominator's concerns are outside the realm of what constitutes reasons for deletion. The article needs better referencing and editing, but I cannot agree that is deserves to be permanently removed. FWIW, I enjoyed reading about the "competition." Pastor Theo (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic is notable. Seems to me that the only thing being questioned is the Article Title. What would be a better title? Keeping in mind that "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." (WP:Name). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Keep - Topic is notable and if anything should be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allinthebrain (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was already closed. The article has been kept. Look at the top of the box above. LadyofShalott ^Weave 19:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]