Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventionism

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.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inventionism[edit]

This article is about a recently invented religion or parody religion. There are no sources, and it seems to me that it's probably unverifiable. P4k 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources, no assertion of notability (or even of having been heard of anywhere). Factoid: after the first prod, one editor remarked in an edit summary: "Inventionism is a rather notable theory/religion in the Metro Detroit area. In fact my college roomate has been interested in it for about a year"... --Goochelaar 19:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nonsense/spam Jtrainor 22:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't quite meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles Banno 04:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like to see where this is going. It looks too well thought out to be worthless. I think nonsense is a little harsh as well. Gregbard 13:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, something like "I like it" is not a reason to keep an article: it must be about a "notable" subject, that is something or someone that is known, written about in third-part sources etc. We Wikipedians are not here to judge on the merits of new religions/theories/ways to peel potatoes. Happy editing, Goochelaar 14:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well pointing to something and calling it nonsense doesn't make it nonsense either does it? BTW, I never said I liked it. Gregbard 14:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about the nonsense is quite sound (but there are exceptions even there): anyway, I only referred to the objective criterion of the lack of sources. For all we know, the contents of the article might even have been invented while it was being written. Happy editing, Goochelaar 15:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Check out the referenced webpage and you will read 'Matthew Lowery and Devin Jenkins (two eighteen year olds from Detroit, Michigan) introduced the theory in early 2007'. It is a remarkable effort, but fails notability criteria. Anarchia 10:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not notable Banno 04:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The article has only one reference, to an individual blog. Currently, the concept of inventionism is clearly original research, and original invention. The relevant Wikipedia guideline is crystal clear: "If you invent ... it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it." In addition, the article is advocacy. So far, the subject clearly fails Wikipedia's these criteria. If the bloggers are able to attract enough interest to have multiple notable sources discuss their new philosophy, at that time it would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. VisitorTalk 02:06, 30 August 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.