Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alientology


 * 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. Valley2 city ‽ 20:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Alientology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article describes itself as about a "neologism". Whether we're talking about the term for the proto-religion or the movement itself, neither of them demonstrate their significance through multiple, independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Protologism seeking credibility. "Alientology is not a religion yet, but that is our goal." Maybe later once there's more RS. Gigs (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreeing with C.Fred here, article fails at WP:NOTE, is short (mostly a collection of links), and hard to understand. The Earwig (User 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I was wondering myself what to do with this -- as Gigs says, it may be notable at some time, but not yet. And as it calls itself an article about a 'neologism'.... Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Anything that calls itself a neologism is likely problematic, and the lack of sources dooms this to destruction. And "not a religion yet"?  There's no minimum size for a religion; the very idea that they hope to have a religion spring from these beliefs makes it sound notoriously non-serious.  Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because an article refers to itself as a neologism doesn't mean that it warrants deletion as a neologism. The guidelines on WP:Neologism establish this.  Some neologisms (in the sense of the common usage of the word) are notable enough to have articles.  In this case, I do find a New York Times article that references the term Alientology: .  But I do not think this particular article is notable because I barely find any sources--and the coverage in that source I gave is rather trivial.  I say Delete but I want to caution users that I do not agree with all the reasoning/arguments presented above.  I agree with the reasoning that there aren't good sources--as many people have pointed out.  Cazort (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that there are zero Google Books hits suggests that whatever this concept is, it has not been established under this particular name yet. The New York Times article cited above is just a review of a television special about science fiction aliens during which Robin Williams used the word "Alientology" as part of a comedy bit. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-styled religion, no indication of wider acceptance, no independent referencing. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no independent, reliable sources that cover the subject significantly enough, which means that it also fails WP:NOTABILITY. -- Wh ip it !  Now whip it good! 22:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2009 (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.