Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Druvianism


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 15:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Druvianism


Please try to keep the discussion section neat, tidy and consistent.


 * Delete, Political neologism. No reputable sources. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Has the discussion moved to here? What was wrong with the other discussion page?  Anyhow, there is really no need to continue repeating the same things over and over again.  Simply carry on the former to here. -- Drewry 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, Strong Keep, Sources are primary, and the article does not violate the deletion policy. -- Drewry 09:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, Strong Delete, the above Keep vote was made by Drewry the creator of the article. He also runs a website promoting the idea, which is linked to in the article, which contains Google advertising. Article clearly violates article 1 of what wikipedia is not. Lewispb 09:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Google advertising" Which has since been removed completely from the site -- Drewry 09:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel it possible could you persuade me and other users how you feel the artcle does not violate Article 1 of what wikipedia is not, no original research. Thank you. Lewispb 09:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be honored to. "If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites."  Firstly, respected is from the view of an opinion however I would say that The World Forum is a respectable online site.  "Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals" the other sources listed would certainly fall into this catagory as well. -- Drewry 09:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, however it should be more thoroughly embedded, as an article, in the whole politics category. HomoUniversalis 09:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, The reasons for delete are not valid enough to remove an entire article, especially one so intruiging as this Hurleygurl777 10:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe Hurleygurl777 is a sock puppet. Lewispb 10:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User:Hurleygurl777 has no other edits. -- Irixman (t) (m) 13:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete User:Drewry has created his own "movement", a web site for it, and authored a post on The World Forum site. That's it.  No evidence that this "movement" is recognized, or even known, by anyone except the creator and his friends. NawlinWiki 12:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because you simply formerly did not know of Druvianism, does that automatically constitute its necessity for deletion? Is not that the purpose of an encyclopedia?  To educate, to spread knowledge to other people around the world.  I could not think of a better venue for knowledge than an online encyclopedia that can be edited by every single person around the world.  I think Druvianism is exactly the thing wikipedia was created to serve.  To be a highway for knowledge, to support it and spread it and make it available to everyone for not a single penny at their cost.  For the sake of deleting an entire article, something that so much work and dedication has gone into, ask yourself this - "Is it really necessary?"  The whole purpose of this discussion is to answer that very simple question.  I agree whole-heartedly that wikipedia is not the place for random and nonsensical articles to spread about, that serve no purpose but diluting the already very diluted knowledge pool and draining it of its potency, however Druvianism is clearly not one of these cases.  Take a moment and think about this, and do not respond out of passion but rather respond with logic and reason. -- Drewry 14:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Is it really necessary?" Yes. Every week somebody has a new philosophy or movement or religion that basically nobody has ever heard of, and wants to use Wikipedia to let people know about it. Become notable first. Then get the article. Fan1967 14:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that the above mentioned happens regularly and I understand your voice for concern. However this is not the case with Druvianism.  Druvianism has about as many supporters as the extreme radical movements, however these articles are allowed to exist un-contested.  My case is that simply because you may or may not have formerly heard of Druvianism, that alone is not enough to constitute the destruction of an entire article.  "I may not agree with what you have to say, but your right to say it I will defend to the death." - Voltaire.  -- Drewry 14:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone trying to promote their unknown project/movement/whatever believes, sincerely, that theirs is different. To try to compare yourself with a movement like neo-nazism, the link you posted, is ludicrous. They have tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of followers. You don't even have anywhere near that many people who've even heard of you. Fan1967 14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is pure speculation and opinion for both accounts. -- Drewry 14:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to claim that your movement is, in fact, notable, you'll need to provide some verification from reliable sources. Right now, Druvianism doesn't appear to exist at all except for a website and a handful of forums. Neo-nazis are in the newspapers and on the news every week. Has a newspaper ever noticed you? Fan1967 14:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, Article is interesting and should remain as this would not be published if movement was not serious. Sources appear to be primary and does not violate the deletion policy. Overall the article adds to general knowledge and that is a big bonus, as encyclopedia's sole purpose is a collection of knowledge. This should not be deleted. Shadow18 13:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe Shadow18 is a sock puppet. Lewispb 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You will find you are mistaken Shadow18 13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So whoever disagrees with you automatically becomes fake? -- Drewry 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Shadow18's user page, the user comes from revora.net, one of the few (very few) forums where this "movement" is discussed. I wonder whether there is a posting there asking people to come here and vote. Fan1967 13:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no post asking people to vote in this topic. Again accusing without an evidence. Shadow18 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse. I said "I wonder". Fan1967 13:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User:Shadow18 has 3 edits. -- Irixman (t) (m) 13:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this is relevent. Shadow18 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your account was created and voted on this AfD in a short timespan, which tends to indicate WP:SPA. If you are a new editor interested in the topic, welcome, and please give us your input. -- Irixman (t) (m) 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you for clearing that up Shadow18 14:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. "The Druvianism movement is primarily a movement occuring in the Western world." Based on the grand total of 38 unique Ghits, some of which seem totally irrelevant, Druvianism is barely a movement at all. I'm inclined to agree with Lewispb's suspicions about votes above. Fan1967 13:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Violates articles 1 and 2. Have to concur that this IS original work and thoughts, which Wikipedia is NOT FOR. Druvianism is not an officially recognised political movement. It shouldn't be here. 88.104.104.103 13:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)AMH.
 * Note: This is the IP's only edit.-- Irixman (t) (m) 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and WP:NOR. -- Irixman (t) (m) 13:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete, for the reasons already given. The fact that the article is well-written might confuse people into thinking that this is a genuine "movement." The worst thing that could happen is this article becoming better embedded in the politics category. Recury 14:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable (and non-verifiable) movement. It's nice to see people thinking about new ways to order government, but a blog- and web-based utopian ideal isn't notable until it's got a lot more than 38 google hits, and preferably a lot of press coverage.  bikeable (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Even though the article is well written on its own terms (organized, clear, etc.) that isn't enough for it to merit being on an encyclopedia. It needs verifiability, neutral point of view and lack of originality. That last one might seem odd (why would we only want things that lack something good, like originality), but it's what an encyclopedia does, and it's what makes an encyclopedia different from periodicals, pamphlets and other media of communication. The author of this article wants a wider audience, and I support that. No one here, even those urging a delete, is denying the author the right to express his/her opinions. There are many sites on the Internet for precisely this kind of ORIGINAL research, but that's not what Wikipedia is about. I wish the author the best of success in spreading the ideas of Druvianism, and once it achieves sufficient coverage so that there are secondary (not primary) sources that can be used as citations, the author by all means should re-submit an article on this topic. Until then, I'd like to invite the author to participate in the many other aspects of Wikipedia that need dedicated editors. Inter lingua  talk 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While I cannot say I fully agree with the above said, I do fully understand the reasoning behind it. In my effort on the movement's behalf, I will proceed to follow consensus.  Druvianism as a movement will pursue new outlets for spreading the ideas stated in the movement, in order to gain credibility and notability.  When if in the course of the following days this community finds that the article should be deleted, given that such was decided after fair and meaningful debate, no permanent damage would be taken to me personally - and I feel strongly that the same could be said to the supporters and leaders of this movement.  Despite the statements of some, my intentions have always been focused on the advancement of the encyclopedia as a whole. If the decision of this discussion is in favour of deletion I would like to apologize having failed wikipedia as a community.  The future of my editions to this community I hope will be prosperous, and I can only hope that no hard feelings have been made as a result of the decision of this article, or the creation of it herein.  -- Drewry 16:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, wot Interlingua said. Just zis Guy you know? 15:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Interlignua. Btw, Druvianism refers primarily to the political movement of Druvianism??? ~ trialsanderrors 17:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasoning laid out by Interlingua with no predjudice against recreation at a later date should this concept/term become more prevalent.--Isotope23 19:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Interlingua. -- Docether 20:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Interlingua.  Tychocat 08:27, 22 June 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.