Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daragonism


 * 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   speedy delete. CSD G3 v/r - TP 14:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Daragonism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research. As the article says: "Daragonism has only been recently brought in the eyes of the public being mentioned the forenamed politician and Beppe Grillo(2011), but still only prevails as an underground Subculture and is not yet a subject of public debate". At least one of the sources don't mention Daragonism. The content is pseudo-science nonsense about consciousness and quantum mechanics. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do some research yourself before claiming such things. Calling De Broglie wavelengths and cymatics pseudo-science is intolerable. Moreover the two politicians DO talk about it. Do you speak Italian? Let people who know more than you judge please instead of making assumptions based on nothing. I agree Daragonians take scientific research out of context but this does not mean they do not exist. Far more senseless movements exist. XmoroX (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't call either de Broglie wavelengths or cymatics pseudo-science. I called Daragonism pseudo-science. It clearly is. As I said above, at least one of the sources don't mention Daragonism, this one: . Just because there are more senseless movements (there are) doesn't mean Wikipedia has to cover this senseless movement. Sparthorse (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is essentially pure pseudo-science (WP:PSCI) and original research (WP:OR). Wikipedia must not be used as a platform to promote such ideas (WP:NPOV). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

it would be pseudo science if it claimed to be a science. it is a cult not a science. and if you had checked the in text citations you'd see that the link you refer to is connected to de broglie, not the movement. It is clear you are both people that jump straight to conclusions and get in the way of progress — Preceding unsigned comment added by XmoroX (talk • contribs) 10:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Luxoculi (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC) And you should stop interlinking to random guidelines to try and look more professional. The author was neutral in his article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxoculi (talk • contribs) 10:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Approve. The author is right, I took the time to listen to the interview and the monologue and they both DO mention it.
 * Please see Sockpuppet_investigations/XmoroX - this contribution is highly suspicious. Sparthorse (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I was about to post the same thing. Both  and  have been editing for less than two days, each of them has contributed almost exclusively to this discussion, and they are taking a similar stance. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No assertion of notability per WP:GNG, zero coverage online, probable WP:HOAX. Filing Flunky (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Domenicism, created by User:Luxoculi. Filing Flunky (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Article does not assert notability (in fact the reverse) and there is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious hoax Well, it's obvious to anyone who saw the now-deleted Domenicism article, which has similar baloney. Passing admin, please review Domenicism and act accordingly here. EEng (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2011 (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.