Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deocredism


 * 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. BJ Talk 00:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Deocredism

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

Apparently non-notable philosophy whose only references are on Facebook. The article itself seems to argue its lack of notability. Rnb (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - utter nonsense. Chaldor (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my intention was never to insult or inflame. The article strongly seems like a WP:HOAX, and if its sole existence is within the confines of facebook, then it lacks WP:V and also fails the test for WP:N. For those reasons, I find the choice clear. Chaldor (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable and unsourced religion, probable hoax. J I P  | Talk 14:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am truly shocked by the bias of wikipedia. This is a true religion and to demean it to no more than a hoax is utter racism and inequality! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deocredist (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This religion though small and not well known has the grounds for publication. It is not possible for an encyclopedia to omit something that is real. How can one even propose such a measure. If this article is deleted that action will be in serious violation with the Civil rights act. To delete this article would count as discrimination against a sect of people which is strictly prohibited in the great United States! I strongly urge the editors of Wikipedia to rethink this deletion, a deletion that if were to occure would harm the good name of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deocredist (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia intentionally omits many things that are real for good reason. You may wish to review WP:VERIFIABILITY. Rnb (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The only source currently included in the article does not even mention the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge: The main aspect of this Deocredism is the existence of God in everything around us? That is a feature of God/Creator which is already described by many other religions.. Perhaps this belongs in an existing list of religious sub-sects or obscure religions? At least, until it gains enough followers to encourage the creation of written stories and records.. Just my $0.02..  --Weasel5i2 (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge: Thank you for considering a merge with the sub-sect religions. I feel that would be okay. I also want to thank for all the people who are considering this merge. I feel that it is the most reasonable action. I also want to apologize for appearing to be insulting wikipedia. That was not my intention, I just felt that my views were being shot down as hoaxes.--Deocredist (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge: I just want to assert the fact that this is a real functioning religious philosophy and I understand that there aren't references to back it up. This is the fault of the followers who are both small in number and lacking in publication. I would like to however say that it should be included with the sub-religions. I once again ask wikipedia to please consider doing this.


 * 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.