Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodgyism


 * 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 as a clear violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Looking at the discussion forum discussion hyperlinked to below, it is clear that the purported religion was invented yesterday. Given the trouble that The Colbert Report is causing right now with Wikipedia hoaxes, I'm exercising a little administrative discretion, in conjunction with WP:SNOW and CSD criterion G3 (i.e. treating this hoax as silly vandalism), to nip this attempt to create yet another such hoax (in conjunction with The Daily Show), in the bud. Uncle G 13:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dodgyism
Likely hoax with no sources so unverifiable (as per User:Gwernol). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Omicronpersei8. Unless reliable, independent sources that show this to be true are added to the article, this is a clear WP:HOAX. Google returns zero hits for Dodgyism. We should not allow Wikipedia to be used to perpetrate this sort of nonsense. Also violates WP:NFT, obviously. Gwernol 23:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, zero Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Stubbleboy 23:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No deletion thanks Jeffy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikewar1 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you can show that Dodgyism is not something you made up, by citing independent sources, then I'm afraid it will be deleted. Please remember this is a discussion not a vote, so you'll need to show how the article does not violate the several Wikipedia policies and guidelines mentioned above. Good luck, Gwernol 23:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, protologism, zero Google hits, and no evidence provided for its existence or notability. -- The Anome 00:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete in spite of Jeffy's amazingly well crafted logical argument. Danny Lilithborne 02:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC
 * Sorry, but this is bullshit. TELL ME HOW this is any different from scientology. All they do is guess, NO HISTORICAL OR SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT. Just because they got mentioned on the news does not instantly make it a valid religion. If I was a news caster and I said "worms rule the world and that religion is called wormism" is it a religion now? We are getting TV coverage soon on the Daily Show. Don't delete this, and if you do, you'll pretty much be obligated to delete anything with scientology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan** (talk • contribs)
 * Good lord, how many times do I have to tell you? Its up above in my answer, I've written it twice on the article's talk page. I've sent messages to several of you guys independently. Stop trying to pretend that no-one has told you how this is different. Scientology has been reported on by reliable media sources. That reporting is what Wikipedia covers. Dodgyism has not been reported anywhere. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant - the only issue is has it been reported? Can you cite sources showing it has? Given the answer is "no" then it cannot have a Wikipedia article. Simple, straightforward and now I've told you a total of six times. If you don't know what an encyclopedia is, I've got this great resource that can help you find out. Read all about it here. Gwernol 10:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No we won't. Danny Lilithborne 05:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please Delete this. They are just trying to get famous by getting on The Daily Show. They are a bunch of immature 13 year olds who have no lives. Look here for the planning of http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=1691234 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Echo10 (talk • contribs).
 * The plan was to spam Jon Stewart into submission? How bold. Danny Lilithborne 05:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the stupidest thing I've read all hour. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What a load of flushatory flushings. Anthony Appleyard 05:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom and the constant disruption of this AFD by the article's author. Ryūlóng 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it so hard for you guys to speak normal English? Again, WHY SHOULD THIS BE DELETED? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan** (talk • contribs)
 * It should be deleted because it does not exist. Anywhere. Ryūlóng 06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * DUR DURDUR. HERE. AND ON THE NATION. Seriously, answer this fucking question since you guys avoid it so much, HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT THAN SCIENTOLOGY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan** (talk • contribs)
 * Quoting Carlos Mencia in all caps will get you nowhere. It's different from Scientology in that Scientology actually exists.  Now quiet down. Danny Lilithborne 06:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because you made it up. Unless you can provide a reliable source on "dodgyism", it will be deleted because it is a hoax. Ryūlóng 06:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete --Shane (talk/contrib) 06:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Also quite a bit of a something created in a school day, as the website was registered on August 4, 2006 and the website was created on August 5. This is nonsense, and quite obviously a hoax.  Highly doubt it will get reliable sources beyond some discussion forum.  Kevin_b_er 06:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds completely Legit to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.60.229 (talk • contribs)
 * You guys are being so closed minded. why can't you accept the fact that there is a growing new religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.159.96 (talk • contribs)
 * Because there isn't. Danny Lilithborne 06:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax/neo-something-ology. Please. --Alf melmac 06:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and hopefully soon. -- Gogo Dodo 07:06, 6 August 2006 (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.