Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doubt based

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doubt based
1 Google hit for doubt based religion More original research. More Microreligion -- Duncharris 10:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. What is so threatening about a different way of thinking? Just because a term is relatively new that does not mean it cannot possibly be valid. The number of votes for delete here just go to show that most people have such small/tiny minds that they blindly follow what they have been taught their entire lives, then...when someone has an alternate view they feel threatened and attack viciously because by god if it isnt what they have been taught it must not be right. Please.--Lish 18:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User's only edit. --Etacar11 19:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Patent nonsense - atheism is NOT a religion. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Just another attempt of Mark Perkel to promote his fake Church of Reality. - Jimbobsween 12:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. At best, it's a dictdef, although I wouldn't go that far. --khaosworks 12:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. While it is clearly meant as a contrast to the common Faith based buzzword, it is, as of yet, not a phrase with any notability or use outside of this one fellow's unnotable parody religion. --Fastfission 14:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a new term and it is totally valid. The Church of Reality is a new religion and it has some new original concepts that don't exist in other faiths. I think the concept of doubt based religion is totally valid. I figured that Christians would want to supress this. They are also attacking the Church of Reality definition. I don't claim Atheism is a religion. Note it says "or groups". Google - 314 hits on doubt based charity --Marcperkel 15:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a self-described neologism. It hasn't caught on, it isn't notable yet. If it someday becomes common, then it will be then quite welcome. Until then, it doesn't belong here. The #1 entry on those "314" hits is a parody, many of the others are for unrelated phrases (such as "there is no doubt, based on past practice"). Searching for "doubt based morality" gets 19 hits, searching for "doubt based charity" gets 4 hits. --Fastfission 16:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Mark: Your "new term", may very well be "valid", but for now it is still a neologism, and Wikipedia is not the place for those, please see No original research. Paul August &#9742; 20:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the Church of Reality is new, it is a genuine religion. Therefore, the term ï¿½doubt based religionï¿½ is a legitimate, real concept and should be kept.  --daze79 4 June 2005
 * First edit by user. Possible sockpuppet. --khaosworks 16:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Sn0wflake 16:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This user has been scattering articles and edits around, all reflecting his personal beliefs (beliefs that I partly share, incideentally, but that's not the point), including Natural religion (which another user has made into a disambiguation page) and Church of Reality. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. - it is good to see the alternative to "faith-based" a type of religion that has been used to justify slaughter through the ages. 63.203.231.61 17:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) Henry Schwan
 * First edit by anon user. Possible sockpuppet.--khaosworks 17:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I say keep because it has already been in past use. An Article Japan: Buddhism meets Shintoism in Japan By Marvin Olasky refers to a doubt-based religion, Zen Buddhism. A quote from the article says " "Zen says, 'You doubt? Great. You haven't doubted enough.'" The article can be found here
 * Another first edit. --khaosworks 17:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * This vote made by anon IP 66.244.72.236. Paul August &#9742; 06:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Newspeak. Don't let them censor CONCEPTS that point out the errors in their thinking. 209.237.225.251 07:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The link above isn't good enough for me - I need to see someone referencing "doubt-based religion" in an academic context outside of this one guy's web page. ESkog 17:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with ESkog. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. "this one guy's web page" I think Dr. Olaskys biography speaks for its self. (66.244.72.236
 * First and only edit &mdash; mockpuppet. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 19:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the second "keep" vote for this IP. Paul August &#9742; 06:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism not currently in any real use. Promotion for a new religion. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism and intelectualy dishonust article (see talk) --Doc (?) 19:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I voted keep for the church but this isn't notable. Falphin 20:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete more ChurchofRealitycruft. RickK 20:13, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons I gave at Votes for deletion/Church of Reality. DS1953 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism. Paul August &#9742; 20:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism. 21:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Church of Reality neologism. --Etacar11 23:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Attempt at promoting/creating a new concept. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a new religion.Tobycat 00:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I doubt that this is notable at this stage. Capitalistroadster 08:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonsense. Martg76 09:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism. --Angr/undefined 05:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, have you read the article about "Faith-based"? It panders to the Christian fundamentalists, by claiming to be about "societal universal benevolence", when it's really about people who can't tell fact from fiction.  Don't help them work on their
 * This person has just added "faith-based" to the neologisms article, and made a mess of the Faith-based article. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per the other delete voters. Quale 02:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I doubt it should be kept. --Xcali 19:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this vote ever going to end? Jimbobsween 01:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.