Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideomanifestationalism


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ideomanifestationalism
Unsourced WP:OR (which the talk page even admits), zero ghits for the term. Prod and prod2 removed. Jamoche 00:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Non-notable, unverified neologism . Seems to be original research as well.-- TBC Φ  talk?  01:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article shouldnt be deleted. If you can come with a logical reason why this does not make sense or cannot work, then you can delete it, and yes this has been created, its not something that has been around for thousands of years, but its a philosophy. You people are like the people who have Socrates killed because they didn't like his philosophy and Socrates was the father of Western philosophy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.102.237 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment. You might be interested in such core content philosophies as verifiability and no original research -- while research is undeniably a good thing, Wikipedia generally is not the place for that. Luna Santin 03:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not for Original thought. -- Fan-1967 04:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, and BJAODN the horrible comparison between deleting a neologism and killing Socrates. Resolute 05:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is exactly the sort of thing that the people who killed Socrates would have said. Wavy G 03:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I'd call this OR but "research" just doesn't stretch that far. "Since God exists in both reality and non-reality" .... and oh god, that diagram is funny. Opabinia regalis 07:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can remember coming up with stuff like this in college, sitting with friends late at night after a few too many, and a little too much reading in Philosophy 1. Fan-1967 14:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Deletrufteoriginologism Danny Lilithborne 08:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom QuiteUnusual 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Philosphy student's attempt to come up with a (rather ridiculous) term, which is basically Dualism (philosophy of mind), but sillier ("the need for milk, an abstract concept"--that line alone almost makes me want to vote keep). Give him an A for creative writing and an F in Philosophy.  Wavy G 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is going to sound harsh, but I cannot find a single paragraph that makes sense in there. Find something else to do the next time you're high. JChap2007 00:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Either complete hoax or non-notable neologism/new idea. Whatever it is, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia at this point.UberCryxic 01:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Drahcir my talk 02:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete at the risk of piling on. This is clearly original research, with a neologism, and a possible hoax.  It's an obvious delete, in my mind. --TheOtherBob 21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per original research -- lucasbfr talk 17:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW speedy delete. There are no WP:RS for this, and there probably never will be. I don't think there can be any serious debate about that. (|--  UlT i MuS  06:59, 6 November 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.