Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julianity


 * 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Julianity

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Hoax or neologism. -- Menti  fisto  19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:V, sources don't seem to exist.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete - See discussion page for counter arguments;


 * I personally speak as a Julianite. As a new religious movement, is it not self-evident that there will be few sources that aren't self-published? And that these are not valid sources? As to the suggestion that Julianity is not a true and original belief system, does not the existence of followers of it represent its existence, and the roots of major religious movements in previous ones is well documented so I don't think you can say, just due to similarities and origins in major religions, that Julianism is not its own movement. 79.64.113.52 (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking as one of the people closely involved in Julianity, I feel obliged to argue that this page is not deleted. It is only a small religious movement, and a lot of people criticize it, however, there are followers, and this is therefore a real faith. I feel that everything written on the page about the faith (obviously not its content) are facts. Therefore I think that it should not be deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.99.172 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also a follower, and it most certainly is a real religious movement! I was not aware that there was also a facebook group, but I did not see that quoted as a source.? Don't delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.106.18 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.35.234 (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - the source seems to be a facebook group; not good enough. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:09, 4 February 2008 (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.