Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybalism


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cybalism

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

Promotional article about a non-notable philosophy. Bringing it here after declining an A7 speedy.  Sandstein  16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Why are you guys even still discussing this? It seems to me from such childish comments as "the linked forum has 2 members! No, that's not a typo.  Two.  T-W-O.  Two", "Appears they spent more time on their logo than their philosophy" and "a not very well edited article" show quite clearly that Wikipedia editors singularly fail to leave their egos on the doormat. You wield your "power" over what lives and dies with a biased hand, aimed more at massaging your own manhoods that giving the users of this site the information they want. Delete the article now, and while you're at it, delete my account as well. I want nothing more to do with wikipedia - my eyes have been well and truly opened. I have to thank you at least for that. Splorkweasel (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I flagged it A7 when I saw that the website for the philosophy/book does not exist and points only to the web forum. The web forum has two registered users, and two posts. A Google search for Cybalism did not turn up any obvious sources that would speak to notability. Newsaholic (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The website does exist, and content for it will be added very shortly - the Forum is a stopgap. The reason for the lack of users/postings is the forum is only 24 hours old.  Suggest you follow the link to the Gnosis website I provided as well.  The book is almost complete and will be published shortly.  Cybalism is spreading primarily by word of mouth and as such it won't be up on Google yet.  The Internet is not the only source of notability. Splorkweasel (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete True, the internet is not the only source of notability. However, this isn't notable either on or off the internet... the linked forum has 2 members!  No, that's not a typo.  Two.  T-W-O.  Two. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears they spent more time on their logo than their philosophy. Any article that starts out with "[topic]is a new [whatever]" is pretty much a slam dunk as not notable.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 01:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete--no notability whatsoever in a not very well edited article. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I was massaging my womanhood, thank you very much. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Holy cow, sounds like someone needs someone else to rub something. For a bunch of philosophical, new age types, you guys are pretty uptight (both of you).  You're harshing our buzz.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note sexiest AfD ever. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No references external to the group, no indication or assertion of notability. Come back when there's more evidence of notability. JASpencer (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MADEUP. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:09, 12 October 2008 (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.