Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innatheism


 * 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 based on the opinions of those few who voted here who were established Wikipedians. I'm closing this early because it has turned into a cesspool. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Innatheism
In contradiction with the above notice: '''Voting - Wikipedia uses a one person, one vote principle for all votes and similar discussions''' from the following page - WP:SOCK
 * I don't see what the contradiction is - one person has one vote, but the point is that the final decision is not based on numbers of votes. Mdwh 20:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete unverifiable vanity religion. This "new faith" gets 0 google hits outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. Postdlf 00:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC) This should not be deleted...if you need to verify the existence of the religion, get in contact with the british government at directgov.helpdesk@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk -- and since when did google become the standard of verification? Dig a little harder, the religion has a small internet following, and attempts have been made to register it with the government. —This unsigned comment is by Innatheism (talk • contribs).
 * Delete as per the nomination. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, here is a commonly accepted take on notability. &mdash; ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that was media hype. The government didn't register jedi as a religion, and they repeatedly said they would not before the census went out. It was a rumour that started in Australia, a completely different country. Don't throw around faulty anecdotes as evidence
 * Delete. nn, unverified.  Bucketsofg 01:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oh please.  Some guy decides it would be cool to found a 'religion' and this is supposed to be notable? --Ricaud 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Remember when the British government listed Jedi Knight as a religion a few years back? Fan1967 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

On top of this, I chose to start the wikipedia entry BECAUSE I could find so little about it on the internet. If this doesn't fit with your policy, I apologise, but I was under the impression that seeing as how I'm not in any way affiliated with the religion, and therefore not publicising, say, a business or venture of my own, this would be ok.

I'm merely trying to inform the world of a viewset that does not exist anywhere else. I actually gained information about the religion myself through a leaflet that came through my front door. Usually I discard religious material, being a strong atheist, but this caught my eye (due to the use of the word atheist in the title).

I wouldn't say it converted me, but I couldn't fit anything about it on the net, so decided to put a small stub here, allowing others the opportunity to expand on it. Does that run contrary to your policy of freely sharing information?

If you wait a while (it's 1:35 in the morning in England, I need to go to sleep for now), I can scan in the leaflet I was given -- would that provide verification that this is genuine? —This unsigned comment is by 88.109.78.41 (talk • contribs).
 * No, coverage in reliable media outlets or academic sources would. Wikipedia is not for information not already covered elsewhere.  Postdlf 02:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you're telling me that even though you COULD very easily phone the government, who would verify the existence of this religion for you, you won't, because it hasn't yet recieved any notable media coverage or google hits? I appreciate that it may not be your place to check the validity that extensively, but then why are you bothering at all? If it's not immediately at your fingertips, you're not interested? I'm placing it at your fingertips. You could verify it with one email -- to a Mr Stephen Wilkins, I've already given you the email address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.184.204 (talk • contribs)
 * delete the article has no problems other than the fact that it's unverifiable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete microreligion. Gazpacho 09:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What purpose would that serve? We could contact the guy so he could tell us you tried to register a religion but (according to this article) the UK doesn't register religions. Seems kind of pointless. Fan1967 14:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete I grudgingly agree with this guy. Is wikipedia really just piggy-backing on google? Tenth_User 13:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

On top of all this, has no one noticed that Innatheism has been on the list of newly founded religions in wikipedia since the summer? I noticed it a while back, and have been waiting for someone to write an article explaining to me exactly what it is ToMySurprise_81 13:37, 16 March 2006

Also, I'd point out that the pages of every user who has suggested the deletion of this article are a bigger waste of wikipedia's time and virtual space - they are all vanity pages, and get 0 google hits outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors ToMySurprise_81 13:41, 16 March 2006

Note to Fan-1967 - I was under the impression that I had to validify that the religion existed. According to the leaflet I was handed out, (which I've offered to scan in and post here, I did not contact the government myself and have no personal connection to this church), the church contacted the government last year. Presumably you agree with me that something must exist in order to contact the government. The fact that they hold no register is neither here nor there, I'm working on the assumption that their correspondance will have been recorded. Or at least remembered.

I only wrote this article, as I have already stated, because I received the leaflet and could find no great information on it on the net. I did find this - [] - which I think you'll agree is quite uninformative. Searching in Wikipedia, results came up with several pages - one of which was a list of religions. Since there was no page on it, I typed up the article we're currently discussing from information in the pamphlet (which I'm still happy to provide for you).

As I've REPEATEDLY said, I have no personal connection to this religion. I'm an atheist. I merely found information on it, and tried to put it on the internet when I found there was no information here already (though the religion WAS already mentioned on wikipedia).

Personally, I think the attitude of wikipedians is ridiculous. I can provide you with a copy of hard media which represents this church, which was delivered through my door. But you won't accept it because google doesn't turn anything up? Two of your policies contradict each other - you'll take information that has a media representation, but only if that representation is already in digital media. The real world exists just as much as the internet does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.27.34 (talk • contribs)
 * Regarding "Note to Fan-1967 - I was under the impression that I had to validify that the religion existed." You were mistaken. Existence is only the first step. You need to validate that the religion is notable. Have people heard of it? Does it have any significant number of followers? Can any of that information be verified? Fan1967 16:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

'''This is a blatent lie. According to wikipedia's page on notability - "Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied...There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Alexa and Google tests (note: many editors do not consider those tests to be objective or reliable)...The person who authored the article clearly believes that the topic is notable enough to be included..."Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance)...The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable." -- The fact that you don't consider this to be of note (or, more probably, disagree with the belief system it outlines), according to wikipedia guidelines, is neither here nor there.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.37.190 (talk • contribs)

I also find this whole debate highly hypocritical, since on this page - [] - you list Wikipedeism as a religion. Misinformation or vanity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellmonkey42 (talk • contribs)
 * Answer Misinformation. Somebody obviously added it as a prank or joke. Fan1967 16:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, Hellmonkey42. Slowmover 19:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Creating an article about a subject on which you yourself have minimal reliable information is ill-advised. As far as you (and we) know, this could be one guy handing out leaflets. Gazpacho 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As already discussed, it is NOT wikipedia's policy to delete articles based on notability. It states this on the notability page itself, and I have quoted it above. To keep parroting "non notable, non notable, non notable" like a broken record is pedantic and irrelevent. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Several users have now described encounters with Innatheists in the real world (myself included), and I can only presume these users are from different places. I, myself, encountered the people handing out leaflets in Milton Keynes, and a user above has encountered them in London. Printed media can also be provided - maybe not information published in a newspaper or a magazine, but that would only prove that the religion was attracting the attention of the media at large - and that's not the question being debated. Nor is it necessary - by wikipedia's policies, peer review or publishment is only necessary for academic claims. I quote: For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. - and even then, this is only a preference, not a necessity.
 * Delete. Strictly on the basis of NN. Slowmover 19:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. &mdash;LrdChaos 04:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP After being approached the other day by some followers of this faith, I wanted to find out more, this is the only information I could find on the internet about Innatheism, this article contains what they were saying. - Jumbeaux_lafeet. 11:18, 18 March 2006
 * User's first edit.
 * KEEP i met some followers of innatheism. there points seemed very just. this page clearly expresses what the were saying. the ammount of google hits does not increase or decrease how relevant it is. chegrem@hotmail.com 20:09pm, 17th march 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.157.77 (talk • contribs)
 * KEEP there are active innatheists - i have met some campaining in the street. you cannot deny the public knowledge just because it is little known. stringy74@msn.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.59.216 (talk • contribs)
 * KEEP Its true i have seen a group of innatheists campaining in London and i don't belive that as it is little known it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.238.57 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Not notable, and also not verified. Can we have something more than "some guy gave me a leaflet"? Mdwh 17:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, but to requote: '''"Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied...The person who authored the article clearly believes that the topic is notable enough to be included..."Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one''' If you're going to object to this article, could you at least do it on grounds based in wikipedia's policies, rather than the fact that you personally think it's not worthy of comment?

In Summary: There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, in the rules for submitting articles that means this particular one should be deleted.

1 - It's been commented that it's not notable - that's your opinion, and not grounds for deletion, by wikipedia's rules.

2 - It's been said that this is unverified - at this moment in time, maybe so, but only because I'm unsure what verification you require. The wikipedia page on verification demands only a fulfillment of the burden of evidence -- the media which contained this information can be provided, which would make wikipedia a secondary source, fulfilling this.

3 - There MAY be grounds for deletion, on a case of dubious reliability. However, according to the verification page, if a source is dubious it should simply be quoted. I can do more than that, I can scan in and upload the document itself.

4 - as for the ignorant question made above: '''Can we have something more than "some guy gave me a leaflet"? ''' - no, you don't need any more than that. Again, I quote from the verification page -- Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources about themselves in articles about them.


 * Strong delete as non-notable neoreligion and ignore this ridiculous sockpuppetry. --Cyde Weys 19:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Cyde. Keep your sockpuppets off here....perhaps enough of them can start their own religion. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article clearly does not come under the terms of What Wikipedia is not, which is the only applicable policy in this case, and, since various people have confirmed its existance, it seems, prima facie, to be verifiable (though some more concrete evidence would be nice). Cyde: you are accusing, without evidence, the page's author of using sockpuppetry to influence voting, which is specifically prohibited under WP:SOCK; surely this is a failure to assume good faith. --David.Mestel 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems to me that you are confusing things.  Yes, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  How is any item of information judged worthy of being part of the collection?  By notability, not verifiability.  Now, accepting this as verified on the basis of 'various people having confirmed its existence' is setting the bar absurdly low imo.  But even if we were to allow that, there is the question of notability.  And there is no reason at all to suppose that this is notable. Bucketsofg 20:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP A guy approached me in the centre of Manchester on behalf of these 'Innatheists' the other day and tried to tell me a bit more about their views. There doesn't seem to be much else about them on the internet but isn't part of Wikipedia's purpose to give us somewhere to look up these obscure things?

Having just following the link (thanks DM) and found out what you mean by "sockpuppet" -- check the IP addresses. How could I make a comment, log off to change IP's, make another comment in another name, log back on WITH THE SAME IP ADDRESS and make more comments? I couldn't. You're accusing me of something that's impossible. Though I'll ignore this insult, as it says on the sockpuppet page - things will only get uglier.


 * 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.