Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jediism


 * 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 Nominator withdrew, no other delete votes. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 02:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Jediism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Strong Delete' no independent evidence of serious notability everything relies on original research. Both major editors responsible for most of the article admit COI giving increased wight on OR making bulk of the article. If anthing this should be a section of Jedi census phenomenon not its own article. Substantial time has been given to improve this article and yet RS are nearly nonexistent. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * keep It is shocking to me however that if are all these good sources why i had to why the article is so poorly sourced. typically in my experience if an article is poorly sourced with things like | this i am inclined to beleive it is two members with COI trying to beef up scant resources to build a flimsy article. This article need such drastic rewriting it is even funny, the "in the media" and in politics section looked more like SW trivia questions than actual segments of encyclopedia thus i nominated it for deletion. I repeal my "delete", there seems to be enough evidence that the movement his significant enough, Clearly some books cover it i was unaware i highly encourage those who seem to have spent such substantial time editing to use those sources.Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is bad, yes. But Jediism is real. Improve, don't delete. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * that was my initial thought as well however i was unable to find any sources that were actually decent and i just ripped the sources that Classify it as NRM do not say anything of the sort. "jediism" itself seems to neologism.Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge To Star Wars as not independently notable (since it is based upon someone else's intellectual property). Fans worshipping Lucas' ideas cannot, however, hijack those ideas as their own unless he proclaims himself leader of this "movement".--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Ideas are not subject to copyright. The word "Jedi" itself is a trademark for Star Wars related things such as books and figurines. Religion isn't on the list.
 * Comment Actually, it seems like Jedi census phenomenon should be merged into THIS article instead. If you put your 'religion' down as "jedi", then you are ostensibly a 'jediist' even if you are doing so in jest, as you are officially declaring it. The phenomenon is intrinsically linked to this article.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. There is independent evidence of serious notability through the five academic references provided. It's ranked mid-importance on wikiproject religion and high importance by NRM workgroup. There is no COI on the article except in things relating to the inclusion of individual churches. (which I am against, just trying to 'copy' other religion-related GA wikipedia articles) The major issue with this article is the lack of detailed academic secondary sources. Ren  ✉  22:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If Jediism is a high importance new religious movement I'd hate to see a mid or low one. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. COI? Are you for real? So Christians shouldn't edit article about Christianity? Jews can't edit Judaism? Wow. Hell, let's take is a step futher. Americans can't edit articles about the US and no citizen of the UK should be allowed to edit anything regarding the Queen. It's a legitimate religion. It become notable, if for no other reason because it has been noted in the media regarding its impact on census'. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merely meant to indicate that that the COI combined with OR makes most of the article suspect as notability wise. there seems to be no academic notability even by Melton's Encyclopedia which covers so many fringe groups it seems to be threshold for notability by NRM Workgroup. Existence does not constitute notability.Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Admit COI" doesn't really make people think of what you just explained, does it? No, existence doesn't confer notability. I didn't mean to imply that it did. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "New Religious Movement in Global Perspective; a Study of Religious Change in the Modern World" does cover the religion, and cites several other studies in it's recap. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exploring Religion and the Sacred in a Media Age doesn't seem to have a high opinion of it, but they do cover it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Jedi Manual Basic - Introduction to Jedi Knighthood" is of course devited to the idea, and also verifies that Canada has recognized the religion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sociology of Religion for Generations X and Y" also covers it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Steve Dufuor, Ren, and Niteshift36. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 01:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Jediism is a real and influential thing with enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Described as a "heper-real religion" (along with Matrixism), it has 70000 followers in Australia and 390,000 in the UK . As noted by Niteshift36, Jediism is analyzed in detail in the books Exploring Religion and the Sacred in a Media Age by Christopher Deacy (religious studies researcher, expert in religious motifs in film) and Elisabeth Arweck (expert on new religious movements), and New Religions in Global Perspective by Peter Bernard Clarke, Professor Emeritus of the History and Sociology of Religion at King's College and tutor in the Sociology of Religion at the University of Oxford. There is an entire research paper on this subject From Jesus Christ to Jedi Knight – validity and viability of new religious movements in late modernity. The nom should check the sources in google before making nomination like this again. --Defender of torch (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment The nom has an apparent COI and deleted a good ref in an attempt to support his views. Apparently this isn't his first time. Ren  ✉  07:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * reply deleting poor Ref that do not meet RS is not a an illgeitmate act Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * comment. A book written by an academic, that's partially avilable online and actually confirms the information it references is a good source. There's no better ref than that. Ren  ✉  20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * please be specific


 * Speedy Keep The reference in Clarke is good and strong. Other good references:, , . There simply is significant coverage in scholarly sources. -- JN 466  22:42, 25 January 2010 (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.