Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domenicism


 * 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 - deleted per CSD G3 by User:Fastily (non-admin closure). —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Domenicism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. I proposed this page for deletion with a rationale including "probable hoax", but the author assures me that it is a real movement. In any case, I cannot find any sources about it on Google Web, Google News, or Google Books, and it doesn't look like it passes our notability guideline. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The only link I provided is for De Broglie wavelength (line 5, paragraph 2, belief) because I could not interlink it with any wikipedia article. As for every other relevant thing mentioned there is an interlink. What I could not provide evidence for is the actual subject. Surely it would not be right to delete the article on the grounds of bureaucracy when it is evident that it would actually be very surprising to find articles (!!) about something born and spread exclusively in masonic lodges and only two years ago. Luxoculi (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't know whether or not this is a hoax but, if it is not, it is certainly not notable. I'm struggling to find sources which even mention the movement, never mind establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable neologism. By the admission of the article's creator, it is unverifiable. --Lambiam 19:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

writer does not seem to be a neologist. We must not get in the way of culture because of our own ignorance. Certainly if we knew about the movement we would not be against this entry. I say we keep it, if it is a hoax it will be easy to tell in the near future. Don't get demoralised Luxoculi (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Approve - The article seems to be based on a neologism but at the same time the
 * 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.