Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coism


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Coism
Delete. Google search brings zero hits, author admits subject is obscure and without sources. wikipediatrix 23:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know what to think of this article. While it fails verification, notability is nill but not being a paper encyclopdia it could stand with verification to me.  Since the author is willing to let it go, it's a coin toss.  I'm waiting to see if anything else happens with it.  TKE 00:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. A religion supposedly developed and spread through the internet that doesn't Google? I don't think so. Sounds like something made up in school. Fan1967 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources and likely hoax -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 02:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable. Gazpacho 03:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; I am the author, and a Coist. You can accept or reject my word according to your judgement, but I hope you don't dismiss every obscure article as a 'hoax'; Coism is not a schoolboy 'fad' (I am, regrettably, no longer that young,) just because it was conceived recently by a small number of people (as, throughout history, all religions were, according to Atheists).  To clarify, however, the principle of Coism was conceived by a small group of us who became acquainted via the internet, rather than invented in a chat-room.  If you consider it too obscure to warrant an article, fair enough, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a 'definitive' collection of all human knowledge.  I think it is not that Coism is too spurious a subject to warrant an article, rather that not enough other equally obscure subjects have articles as well.  There may only be a handful of us, but are there no diseases with far fewer sufferers that are listed on Wikipedia?  Furthermore, does Wikipedia have a 'maximum' capacity for knowledge?  And what is the threshold of 'obscureness' that must be passed to warrant an article?  Mjefm 16:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 16:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Three questions: 1. Where did the information in this article come from? 2. How can you prove that this whole thing isn't something you just made up?  3. Have you read Wikipedia guidelines on what constitutes a notable subject for inclusion? wikipediatrix 18:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment "If you consider it too obscure to warrant an article, fair enough..." That is correct. "...but Wikipedia is supposed to be a 'definitive' collection of all human knowledge." I don't know where you got that idea. Wikipedia does not want to be an indiscriminate repository of everything under the sun. The standards are basically that, in order to be covered in Wikipedia, something must be notable and verifiable. We have at least half a dozen new religions or belief systems a month, some spurious but many sincere, and most known to at best a few dozen people. The sincerity of your beliefs is not an issue. What is an issue is whether there are any significant number of people who follow, or have even heard of, this belief. It seems quite clear that, at this time, the answer to that is no. If at some point this belief should spread and actually become notable, it can, at that time, be legitimately covered here. Fan1967 18:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Provide a citation that the religion exists and has been recognized by other people, and we may keep it. Gazpacho 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely it would be good to keep this kind of article - even if the movement never has more than a handful of members, it's worth preserving this article for historical reasons. DH, --203.111.66.236 08:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone has to prove first that it really exists and is not a hoax. Not much chance of that with zero Google hits. wikipediatrix 20:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Geez, I'm starting to think that we need to formulate notability guidelines for religion sometime or other. --maru  (talk)  contribs 20:34, 2 April 2006 (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.