Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cullenism


 * 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. Consensus is that notability has not been established in independent, third-party reliable sources. I will preempt the cries of abuse to my talkpage on this one, by asking that anyone who is unhappy with the outcome go straight to deletion review Fritzpoll (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cullenism

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

I've just declined the speedy on this as notability has been asserted. The community needs to reach an opinion on this I think. -- Ged UK  21:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I am the author of this article. You say that my sources are unreliable because they are from blogs and fan websites. I would like to disagree and explain to you why I used those resources. Cullenism is a religion, and religion is centred around belief. I thought that it was best if I found out what real people actually thought on the matter so that I could write this atricle in an unbiased way. Cullenism is a more casual religion, and there are few sites which give an outward look on the subject. There are either websites which rave about the religion or blogs which criticise it. I though that by using all of this information I could put together an article that would give readers both the facts and opinions on Cullenism. (MerthyrGirl10 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Delete with no prejudice towards recreation if it becomes a phenomenon of note. The history of the idea seems to be fan websites/blogs -> one article in the Examiner (cited) -> a few people reporting the Examiner story.  I don't see anything which would make anything verifiable or reliable.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the note. While primary sources are useful as you suggest (provided a blog by a Cullenist can be taken as evidence of what all Cullenists believe), it is secondary sources--coverage by independent media--which is mainly of use in establishing notability.  See notability guideline for more information.  Thanks (MerthyrGirl10 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)),--TeaDrinker (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making that clear for me. However, I have to point out that there are not really any unbiased media reports on Cullenism on the internet which was my reason for creating this article. The only sources that I could really use were blogs and fansites. I am doing more research for more reliable sources and I will post it onto the article if I find any. If you know of anywhere I could go to find a more reliable source I would appreciate your contribution, thank you. (MerthyrGirl10 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Delete. This article is a clear case of why the general notability guidelines require independent sourcing. Currently, it's heavily laden with the original editor's opinion. Unless sources are forthcoming from independent sources which back up the claims that this is a religion, among others made in the article, it should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As the writer of this article, I believe that it is written in an unbiased way http://www.twilightseries.co.za/tag/cullenism/ Maybe this source will clarify some doubts. I am aware that it is still someone's opinion but it still shows facts on Cullenism and is from one of the main twilight wesites. (MerthyrGirl10 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The issue we're trying to decide here is less a question of unbiased writing, but whether it is notable at all. Independant reliable sources that talk about the subject is the way wikipedia works this out. -- Ged UK  20:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. I cannot actually find any independant sources which was my reason for writing this atricle. I hoped that this article could be an independant source for people, and you cannot deny that there is a lot of interest on the subject from the blogs I have directed you to. However, I would much prefer the article to be edited than deleted, so I would be happy if anyone could help me to improve it up to wikipedia standards. Thank you. (78.147.195.216 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

sorry, the comment above this is mine, I forgot to sign it. (MerthyrGirl10 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Speedy delete Hoax/patent nonsense Computerjoe 's talk 21:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your comments. I have used many sources to write this article and just because they are not independant it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used. I wanted this article to be a place where people could come to for information on the subject. I think you'll find that all independent sources originally use other sources to get their information from which is what I actually did. It is after all a religion (or if you prefer it not to be classed as this a club centred around believing in something) so what better than people's actual opinions to use on the subject. I will say again that I would much prefer this article to be edited rather than it be deleted. So if anyone has any contribution to improve this atricle I would be very grateful. I will continue to look for an independant source that I could use to improve the article. Thank you. (MerthyrGirl10 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Delete. I put the original speedy on this as unlike Ged  I could find no assertion of notability. Even if we can now find one, the author states they "cannot actually find any independant sources which was my reason for writing this atricle" so it should be deleted for having no references to support notability or as original research. Pontificalibus (talk) 12:50, 13 April 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.