Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithism


 * 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, with no prejudice towards merging with Oahspe: A New Bible and redirecting. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Faithism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

non notable religious theory, possible WP:HOAX Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) As described in the article, it's not a religious "theory" but a religion by itself, although small (but in existence for more then one hundred years). Concerning the possible "hoax", as stated (and linked, referred) in the discussion and the article, Faithism is the religion of several defunct and existing groups, organizations, churches and one of them, the "Universal Faithists of Kosmon " is on Wikipedia already; There is a Museum in Las Cruces NM (Shalam Colony & Oahspe Mystery Museum P.O. BOX 159 Dona Ana, NM 88032-0159 USA )which issues a Magazine, " The Vortex" ,an archive at the NM State University, USA, several, now closed communities, books edited in print and out of print by organizations who claim to be Faithist etc. Numbers are now small, but real; evidently it's no "hoax". Vanais (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC) — Vanais (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 16:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a non-carnivourous pacifist Faithist in One Great Spirit, as defined in Oahspe page 1 verses 16-20, I have practiced this religion as best I can, without the present existence of a Faithist commune to join in, for the past 30 years. We are working toward re-establishing such a communal setting where followers of Jehovih/Om the Great Spirit can practice communal oneness, holding all things in common as taught in Oahspe and as described of early believers in Acts 4:32. There are many of us who are in communication with each other in ongoing groups. Just because someone may not have heard of us does not mean that we do not exist. M. H. Jones Lordessoflight (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — Lordessoflight (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - no WP:RS/WP:N that I can find. The term is mentioned in the Oahspe, but nowhere else as far as I can tell.  —  æk Talk  03:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources that I could find. Google matches for "faithism" primarily use the term as a blanket word for religious discrimination (racism, sexism, faithism) which isn't what this article is about. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Faithism is a term which is used for (excessive) attachment to Faith,even as a word for discriminating on grounds of faith, as sexism,racism etc. but it is also the term that several groups, churches and the like use now and used in the past to address themselves, as in Universal Faithists of Kosmon, and others (consistently with the use of it in Oahspe, the Holy Book of the religion) ; given the small numbers of the followers, now, you can't expect to find the term used primarily to address the religion, which nevertheless exists, as it can be also seen by google; Vanais (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC) — Vanais (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. I don't doubt Vanais/Lordessoflight's sincerity, but if this is a religion there's no indication it exists anywhere except on faithism.com.  Lordessoflight said, "Just because someone may not have heard of us does not mean that we do not exist."  Very true.  But just because something may exist doesn't mean it is notable.  See WP:BUTITEXISTS.  Calling your belief system a religion doesn't make it notable; anyone can do that and plenty have (compare the Church of Filet Mignon), sorry.  --Glenfarclas (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It' s not only in faithism.com, googling, it can actually be be found also, with a small article, here :www.sacred-texts.com which is an important site of religious texts; here:, and here  , within a site in Portuguese about religions, in the section dedicated to the founder, John Ballou Newbrough  by searching Faithist you can find more, for instance , besides the above mentioned article on Wikipedia on the Universal Faithists of Kosmon Church, here : , and  several yahoo groups  • If the point is that the term Faithism is , as it is , probably more now then at the time Oahspe was written, used as a parallel word for racism and sexism, this should lead to a disambiguation page rather then ignoring the minority acception of the term; It's not only a belief system, as Glenfarclas writes, having, as described in the article, rites and ceremonies, calendars, organizations, prayerbooks etc.(talk) 13:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Vanais (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) — Vanais (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment If you digit "Faithism" in the online catalogue of the Library of Congress, at : you find data and referrals of a magazine and texts on Faithism as a religion, edited in London, in 1920 ;with further details available if you click the press or save button, and also here:  As a religion on its own, although with a a name which (now) is mostly used to describe something else, Faithism has been in existence for more then 100 years, important for being founded on Oahspe , being part of the spiritualist movement, having a peculiar combination of religious and masonic characters and features, like Mormonism, albeit on a small size, showing, again  small, many of the traits of other much bigger religions, like differences between "sola scriptura" believers, schism over calendar issue, secret ceremonies and oral traditions  , strong concern over social issues with several communes founded, of which, the Shalam commune in NM, USA was relevant and is still matter of interest and research, also at academic level ; Vanais (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC) — Vanais (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment History of Faithism, with references, Bibliography and pictures,besides information on the subject can be found here : New Mexico State University
 * Comment Many Faithist texts can be found digiting "Kosmon" in the search engine of the British Library (online) some matches mentioning a "Faithists Scientist Church", see :Vanais (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There are people who are NOT practicioners of Faithism who have researched papers, documentaries and the like for the edification of any interested persons. Here is a link to a documentary which will soon be be released which is about the Shalam Colony of Faithists who practised Faithism:. Students of Theology, Philosophy, Religion, etc., would expect to find all religions in such a wide resource as Wikipedia. To claim that an existing religion with historical and contemporary references, and with wide international membership (USA, Australia, South Africa, U.K., Holland, Italy, Greece, Canada, and more), is not notable, sounds like bigotry to me.Flaxseed2000 (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC) — Flaxseed2000 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That bigotry comment is perilously close to being a personal attack, which is strictly prohibited by wikipedia rules. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The Kosmon Church in UK is still existing,operating and celebrating rites and ceremonies, the site is : www.kosmonchurch.org.uk Vanais (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The references are all primary sources; no indication of notability. Being a religion is not a free pass for notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Not all sources are primary, see: the NMSU archive and Shalam, Utopia on the Rio Grande,edited by The University of Texas at El Paso, by Lee Priestly, for instance; Being a religion is not a reason for being ignored ;Vanais (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Oahspe: A New Bible, I see no need for a separate article. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Although in a different scale it would be like merging the Bible with Christianity;Vanais (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Which shows how important scale is. Do you think you could please start using indentations? Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually these latter comments do not show that scale is important; The fact that Faithists have always been few has been highlighted all the time,both in the article and the discussion, but what is important is to notice how much a small religion can have the same characters and history of the big ones,I believe this is one of the reasons why Faithism deserves attention;in particular it's a replica of many characters of the Mormon religion, but it failed, by far, to reach its worldwide success; under a social and historical point of view it should not be dismissed ; in other words, research about Faithism is a reasearch on religious phenomena and important aspects of 19th and 20th century America .Vanais (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry, no, doesn't work that way. As I've said before: being a religion is not a free pass to notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete While I am open to the idea that wikipedia covers any and all religions, I cannot find anything that would give me a suitable definition of the term in the way the article uses it ("faithism," as mentioned above/earlier is mostly given as a neologism along the lines of "racism" or "sexism"). When this is the case, I would deem it the responsibility of the article's creator to establish notability. As it stands, the two online-sources do not support or confirm the notability of the topic, one is a wikipedia self-reference, and the rest is a poor assemblage of various writings that hardly anyone could check or has access to. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * merge/redirect to Oahspe: A New Bible, where the term is already bolded in the lede. --dab (𒁳) 11:25, 26 December 2009 (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.