Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confusionism

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'll not make the redirect however as I'm not really persuaded of the case for it. Someone else can if they want to. -Splash 22:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Confusionism
Some kind of weird nonsense. Ryan Delaney talk 07:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * WTF!!! errr... I mean, delete. Sasquatch   &#35762;  &#30475;  08:02, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete seems like a mix of nn vanity, promotion, and hoax. --TM (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Confucianism. Proto t c 09:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the above (especially Sasquatch :)); I vote to have the contents of this page blanked, and the page redirected to Confucianism, with whose spelling it is often, um, confused.— Encephalon |  &zeta;   09:32:52, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
 * Keep What's wrong with pages about new philosphies/religions/whatevers. whould you try and delete articles about scientology or buddhism?
 * On second thoughts, perhaps we should delete the scientology articles as well. 212.101.64.4 09:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem it's not really a religion... it's a blogigion.... or something... let's just say it confusionism confuses me (though I suspect that is one of their goals). There is also, of course, the question of notability in this case. Sasquatch   &#35762;  &#30475;  02:23, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - It sounds gibberish, swaying me to believe that its original research and/or nn. UniReb 12:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a heretical copyvio against Discordianism! Hail Eris! the wub  "?/!"  13:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete almost a Speedy but not quite. Definitely a delete though. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  14:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing more than a bunch of external links. I will vote delete.--Scimitar parley 15:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonsense. "aspire to become the official religion" of what?  Zoe 19:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, probable hoax. Maybe even speedy since it looks like a test page. Punkmorten 21:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, tired pun, likely hoax. Fire Star 03:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Confucianism, per Proto Alf melmac 13:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments only, no vote - this article has nothing to do with Confucianism, and any redirection will be misleading and a great injustice to Confucius. --Bhadani 17:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Bhadani. I agree with you that they're obviously not the same (I'm sure everyone who voted agrees too). However, the idea behind the redirect vote is that the spellings are often confused, and people looking for Confucianism will often type in Confusionism. A redirect will send them to the correct article. Creating redirects for common misspellings is apparently done fairly often on WP. However, it is likely this page will be deleted outright.Best wishes— encephalon |  &zeta;   17:49:33, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
 * Hi, I understand and readily agree with you and all others, for the redirection, if done. That would be fine in the light of existing practice and your clarification. Thanks.--Bhadani 07:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin 22:40, September 3, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.