Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goden


 * 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Goden

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable religious article tract. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced. Google hits mostly in Dutch, where it seems to mean "gods". None that I found related to this religious movement. In effect, unverifiable. Huon 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I can't find any evidence this religion exists. Don't we already have a perfectly good word for people who worship God but not Jesus, anyway? —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, not sure how that would match up with the Goden's take on !Dogma. It almost feels like the Gospel of Emerson. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  22:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How many members must a religion have in order to "exist"? Jews are a very Dogmatic people (i.e., wrong answer).  Unfortunately, even Transcendentalists practice their own form of Dogma.  The Goden have but one Dogma, that "All Dogma must be rejected."  I suppose that deletion is a form of censorship, not as extreme as crucifixtion or stoning, but just as effective as a form of persecuting perceived heresy.  Help, help, we're being repressed!Tsesuna 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of existence but encyclopedic notability-- meeting inclusion requirements for Wikipedia. These in include notability for subjects and verifiability for sources. Wikipedia is not censored. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Removing unencyclopedic material is not persecution. You are free to practice your beliefs as you see fit, but you are also encouraged to contribute to this encyclopedia constructively by following its policies and guidelines. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim   20:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We have no beliefs. That's the point.  We worship God by rejecting beliefs.  No soapbox was intended.  The persecution discussion was tongue in cheek [hence the Monty Python reference - or perhaps that should've been footnoted].  What exactly is it that makes knowledge worthy of being "encyclopedic"?  Sincerely, I ask you.  You have articles on many religions here that warrant this designation, but ours is in question.  I seriously doubt that any religion that doesn't demand money and fealty from it's followers will ever be successful enough to warrant this type of designation.  Hence each is lost in time.  Why do religions cram Dogma down people's throats?  Because, without Dogma, they aren't verifiable as "encyclopedic" knowledge.  We recognize your right and duty to delete us from the pages of history.  You have our blessing to do so, but do so aware of the part that you play in history through your action.  Cheers to you my friend and peace be with you.  67.187.99.163 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - it's not dogma that makes something notable to Wikipedia, but mention in significant, reliable sources. Are there newspaper articles or books about this dogma-less belief system? I didn't find any, the article doesn't give any. For example, are the article's Goden the same as these (in German)? Probably not. But if I were to edit the article and add information based on the website, what sources could you give to show that the information is not correct concerning the Goden the article talks about? Huon 10:33, 21 September 2007 (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.