Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saxetism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:12Z

Saxetism[edit]

Saxetism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
File:Saxpic.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Does not meet any of the notability guidelines, seems to be a conflict of interest (the article's creator has the same name as the article itself), as well as possibly being made up, as there is no reliable source that I could locate with which to verify the contents of the article. Kyra~(talk) 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shadownoel 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)"Not verifiable?' "Possibly made up?" like that doesn't sound like 2 or 3 major religions i know. Christianity, give me one reliable source other than a 2000 year old book. Same with Islam/Judaisms. Before you go bashing my religion, think for a sec. Your just saying that your better than me. And this is the first post on the internet, so there is no source online with which to verify it. If you don't like that, just go away. If you delete this, you MUST delete those pages as well.[reply]
  • Delete user Shadownoel, please read Wikipedia policy WP:V, WP:NOTE and WP:NOT they contain all the

information you need to know about why this article is not acceptable. If you have any questions about any of this just ask. No one is trying to demean you or censor you. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't care what those rules say, the truth of the matter is that there is not verifiable truth to ANY religion whatsoever other than a 3,000 year old book and a long time spent with it. Your censoring me, plain and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadownoel (talk • contribs) 03:00, February 9, 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. The issue of verifiability doesn't apply to the content of the religion but to that of the article. For example, the following statement would be acceptable in an article on Christianity: "Christians believe that Christ was ressurected." The following statement would not be: "Christ was ressurected." In the case of this article, the statements in it cannot be verified, but the statement "Christians believe that Christ was ressurected" can be. --N Shar 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I assure you, I am not trying to censor you at all. To quote from the primary notability guideline, and as such expand on my nomination, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" (emphasis maintained). Christianity, Buddhism, and the like have been the subject of such works. As for the verifiability, it is one of the three core content policies, the other two being no original research, and writing from a neutral point of view. Additionally, the threshold for inclusion within Wikipedia (from Wikipedia:Verifiability) is "verifiability, not truth" (emphasis maintained). That means since the material within the respective religion articles can be verified by editors using reliable sources, the respective articles merit inclusion. Additionally, N Shar really sums it up. It's the verifiability of the content of the article, not the religion. Have a most wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment above. The existence of this religion is not verifiable. --N Shar 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet wp:notability requirements. Probably can't be made to meet those requirements, with 0 google hits. Saxetists are strongly encouraged to try Invisible Pink Unicornism instead. If you please the IPU, she may teleport you to the moon with a twinkle of her iridescent invisible horn. — coelacan talk — 04:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0 ghits==hoax Josh Parris 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His Noodliness is not amused. John Vandenberg 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not even an attempt at participating in what we do here. Shadownoel says "I don't care what those rules say." Well, I don't care that this rude person wants this lunacy on Wikipedia. It's not going to be. -- Shaundakulbara 10:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Didn't your mother ever tell you it's not polite to WP:POINT? While we're at it, let's throw in WP:OR, WP:V, WP:HOAX, and WP:NFT.


66.109.112.18 16:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)You're just like the ancient romans at the start of christianity. You bigots are the reason that only christianity reigns in the US. Take your bigotist opinions elsewhere, and leave us to ourself. If you don't like it, leave.[reply]

    • If this were AD 1, then Christianity probably wouldn't be notable enough for an article. But it's not AD 1. Sorry, try again. And where's the logic if someone coming into a community and telling others to leave if they don't like them? --UsaSatsui 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66.109.112.18 16:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC) if you don't think that this is verifiable, its only because we haven't published online before. We are, however, a very true religion. Do NOT delete this page. We are trying to spread our message.[reply]

    • Then show us some offline sources. They're acceptable too. If you're just looking to "spread your message", though, we can add WP:SPAM to the list. Geocities has free websites, you know. --UsaSatsui 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. No sources provided, and none findable via google. -- Whpq 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. --Soman 16:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Shadownoel 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)I have now added a disclaimer to the beginning of this page. Stop bothering our beliefs now. Thank you.[reply]
  • I am personally offended that this sight is being considered for deletion. I truely believe that the almighty SCOPULUS is the lord and Savior/Creator of this world. If this sight is terminated all sight with any relation to Christianity, Judism, Budism, Islam, or any other religions should be terminated as well. Thank you and come again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halter410 (talk • contribs) 18:33, February 9, 2007 (UTC)
  • Halter410 18:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)I am personally offended that this sight is being considered for deletion. I truely believe that the almighty SCOPULUS is the lord and Savior/Creator of this world. If this sight is terminated all sight with any relation to Christianity, Judism, Budism, Islam, or any other religions should be terminated as well. Thank you and come again.[reply]
    • Why do I get the feeling there's a couple of 10-year olds snickering at this? I'm going to try this one more time, then I'm going to stop feeding the trolls. If you want to keep the article, you need reliable, third party sources. Whether the subject of the article is real or not is irrelevant, what you or anyone else personally believes is irrelevant, all that matters here is that someone, somewhere, published something about it. The merits of Christianity, Buddhism, or any other religion, or even any other topic, are not in the discussion. We don't discriminate here: Find a source, or it's gone. If you want free webspace, Wikidia is not the place for it. --UsaSatsui 19:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadownoel 18:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)And about that community thing...this is online. You dont have to see me. So just dont come to this page, and i wont annoy you. simple as that.[reply]

I think you may be missing the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a web space provider (there are plenty of free providers though). It has content standards that have been well explained, unless you can assert notability (more than existence) you can't have a page it is as simple as that. It has nothing to do with religion, Christianity et al get pages not because we believe they are fact, but because they are major religions with millions of followers and more importantly countless pieces of literature from which to source an article. No one is bigoted here, no one is trying to stop you from spreading your message, the only thing people are trying to do is insure the quality of Wikipedia, not looking at a particular page as you suggest we do is not a solution. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as probable hoax and unverified. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per most other delete recommendations above, especially N Shar's comment. --Metropolitan90 22:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I am sympathetic to new religious movements, but the article is unsourced, the tone is unencyclopedic, the number of search-engine hits (none) provide strong evidence it is non-notable, the WP:COI comes through pretty strongly, it reads like a parody of organized religion (so WP:idontlikeit - although that's not a policy or reason to delete on its own) and objections to its removal read like a challenge for the purpose of testing Wikipedia policy. ◄Zahakiel► 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so many reasons to choose from. I'm gonna go with patent nonsense. Resolute 07:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete but personally, I would have used a speedy.DGG 07:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaNeMeBasat (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE. Surprisingly, as bizarre as this sounds, there are several groups of this religion throughout the United States, and especially in South America. They are mostly formed in poor, farming towns, like in the midwest or Argentina. I have never been in attendence of one of their meetings, but have donated to some of their annual fundraisers. Jordangg40 — Jordangg40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Halter410 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC) I dont see how u can say that any religion has a reliable source to "back it up". And if you really think that a 2000 year old book suppsedly written about the son of god is a verible source you need to get your old faculties checked.[reply]

  • Comment. You might want to read the comments above, many of which explain what it means for a religion to be verifiable. It doesn't mean what you think it does. --N Shar 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need proof Christianity is true to include it. Just proof it exists. For the record, The Bible is waaaaaay older than 2000 years. --UsaSatsui 03:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72.134.152.244 04:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Here bigots, a site. http://www.geocities.com/calfour267/Saxetism.html Our source is there, now stop bothering us because of our religion![reply]

Boy, can members of Saxetism read? If you want to game the system by creating sources at least read some of the policies so you can create a source that meets requirements, I am not going to mention the policies but they are listed ad nauseum above. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadownoel 04:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)All of those requirements have been met. It would be very cool if you didn't just assume that whoever made that page was wrong, but actually read the posted rules above.[reply]

Shadownoel 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) btw, this page is very cluttered...but off topic. About the tone being not encyclopedic: What, so we have to use a ton of "thy" and "thines" and "shall" and "smiteth" for a religion to be true. Please.[reply]

WP:RS is all I have to say, geocities sites aren't reliable sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66.74.101.230 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC) good thats all you have to say? Then keep the rest of your coments to your self and leave us alone.[reply]

and ok, yes, the bible is older than 2,000 years, but the part thats pertinent to Christianity is 2007 years old or less. Shadownoel 05:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great; then just as soon as Saxetism achieves such a history, it will undoubtedly be notable enough to include in Wikipedia4K. In fact, we can even be charitable and include it before that as soon as it publishes a book, develops a detailed website that is referenced by a third party, or has one of its members interviewed in printed media. And that's just the bare minimum to avoid WP:SNOW. Until then, it is unverifiable, and should not be included on this site. Deleting the entry is not a judgment upon the beliefs of individuals, so enough with the soapboxing; even if the editors took the information seriously, their discussion here reflects their desire to simply uphold the policies of this website. ◄Zahakiel► 20:58, 13 February 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saxetism&oldid=1138342764"