Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinitism (religion)


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Infinitism (religion)
Brand-new "religion", which the article states explicitly was set up as competition for the already barely-if-that notable Universism (Infinitism has the potential to supplant Universism...). Google for "Infinitism religion haley" (to weed out a lot of false positives) gets 14 hits. Author keeps removing the tag, so here we are. Calton | Talk 00:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: a violation of WP:NFT and a nn religion. --Hetar 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Couldn't find a lot of relevant results on Google, other than of course Wikipedia and its mirror sites. -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 00:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Given the nn nature of the religion, the article will not be able to give verifiable info any time soon -- it instead becomes a vehicle to draw potential adherents. Chart123 01:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: An obvious vote, since I'm the author; no, I am not David Haley. I like to peruse the philosophy portal and happened upon the article that I spun off into Infinitism (philosophy), which contained a brief sentence about Infinitism also being the name of a religion; subsequent Googling turned up Haley's site.  It seemed sufficiently different from the infinitist epistomological concept to warrant a separate entry, but only a stub (which I tagged it as from the beginning).  The reference to Universism was an admittedly hasty response to the first  tag, and could be reasonably removed; the article was NOT "set up as competition for the already barely-if-that notable Universism."  Application of the WP:NFT policy, since this is in reference to religion, seems odd since most people would consider any religion other than their own "things made up ... one day."  I apologize if I inappropriately removed the  tag; this is my first time creating an article (for future reference, who decides when an  tag can be reasonably removed?).  I can't respond to the "nn" comment as I am not familiar with that abbreviation. Sketch051 02:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, "nn" stands for "not notable" -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 02:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ... and "not notable" means that even if the thing exists, it is not (yet) important enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia. In this case, there is very little to go on to suggest that this use of the term "infinitism" is notable, in the sense that it has meaning or significance to a large number of people. I would suggest moving infinitism (philosophy) back to infinitism (currently a disambig page), and add a few lines in that (very short) article about this alternate usage. Can't speculate that this will overtake patheism/pandeism/panendeism/whatever anymore than we can speculate that Judaism will overtake Buddhism or the like. Cheers! BD2412  T 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment,Two things: (1)If it's notable enough to be mentioned at all in the epistomological article, why is it not notable enough for its own stub (since it has nothing to do with the epistomological concept)? (2)I see the point you are trying to make about speculation, but I think the analogy (Infinitism:freethought::Judaism:Buddhism) is flawed; a more apt analogy would be Infinitism:freethought::Catholicism:Early Christianity. Sketch051 21:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * More like Infinitism:freethought::Catholicism:(some other religious order that someone thought of, but never went anywhere and died out before anyone else adopted it). We already know what happened between Catholicism and Early Christianity, so to say that Infinitism as a religion might enjoy any kind of success is sheer speculation. I would still include a line or two in an artice on Infinitism focused on the philosophy, but I can't exactly quantify why I think it's a good idea to do so - perhaps just as an illustration that it is possible to assign another meaning to the term. BD2412  T 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The arguments in that sarcastic analogy are crossed. If you're going to be derogatory, at least do it literately.  Sketch051 23:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I intended neither sarcasm nor derogation. I merely point out that this newly invented religion may never amount to anything, so it is improper to analogize it to a religion that we know to have temporarily overtaken the counterpart named. BD2412  T 23:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn religion, unverifiable. --Ter e nce Ong 02:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Calton and Hetar.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@ 04:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - when one of the external links has to be a blogspot, it's not a good sign. -- tyler willis    |  talk   to me  06:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Its like Time Cube except not notable. Roodog2k 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Domthedude001 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:NFT - a nn religion. Rockpocket 21:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism, non notable. -- H eptor  talk 21:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Robin Johnson 12:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article consists mainly of one editor's critique of this ahem, religion.  Not only does this fall prey to WP:NOR, but even after extensive cleanup, "infinitism" would still not be notable in the least.  --C S (Talk) 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Concerning the religious symbol so-called: first used by J.Wallis in mathematics in 1655. commonly used when sizes of infinity is no matter, or simply when talking of ω. ref. eg symbol for infinity. Listing the symbol as religious is somewhat "bogus". kyrre at mi.uib.no


 * 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.