Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementism


 * 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 idiotic garbage. DS (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Elementism
Contested PROD. Unsourced article about a religion created in the 80's whose notability is questionable at best. Delete. Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 01:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't even the issue. I can find no sources whatsoever &mdash; books, web pages, news articles, journal articles &mdash; that document any such religion.  The article appears to be citing two books as sources.  But I cannot find any books by those titles, either.  (The citations, if they really are such, don't give author, year of publication, publisher, or ISBN.)  This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If by "in the 80's" we mean the 1800s, then elementism was a theory in visual perception. There is absolutely no evidence that it has ever referred to a religion prophesying a canine uprising, though. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable. Pburka (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 04:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and Uncle G. This was speedied A1 yesterday, but it has grown a bit. The "canine uprising in 2012" bit makes it seem like a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonnotable and likely a hoax. NawlinWiki (*talk) 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: likely WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tagged this with a PROD and strongly agree that it has all the earmarks of a silly hoax.  Accounting4Taste: talk 04:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable at best, a hoax at worst. --Ubardak (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2008 (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.