Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laruunash

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash talk 01:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Laruunash
A new religion, with a blog page all about it. No indication that this has gained any kind of currency. Looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia to gain legitimacy. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Friday (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Laruunash, Anseynol, the Laruunis and all other luunies and anusoles. TheMadBaron 18:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am Anseynol. As there is already a blog page for the religion with far more information, a brief note on Wikipedia would not be essential for the future of Laruunash. However, it must be clear that 'gaining legitimacy' is clearly not something that laruunis seek, especially when they are required to question and challenge the authority of nation-states and existing churches.
 * I openly admit that the religion has not gained 'any kind of currency'. If this is indeed a prerequisite for a half-page entry on Wikipedia, by all means delete it. As a philosopher and a scientist, I understand that some encyclopedists emphasize the need not only to report the present level of knowledge, but also to give an impetus to some readers to rethink (matters of science, morals, aesthetics, etc.) and to advance the existing pool of knowledge.
 * delete looks like a vanity religion page, the only thing this religion has going for it is the blog linked to in the (advertising-copy-like) article. maybe in a few years, we'll see if the blog/religion lives or dies, but right now this looks like vanity advertising in order to get a new religion off the ground, or improve blog rankings. Sorry Anseynol, legitimacy *is* a standard for an encyclopedia article. KillerChihuahua 19:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Anseynol writes: Please do not feel sorry for me Mr./Ms. Editor. I feel very fortunate in many ways, and I do feel an obligation to serve those who are less fortunate. My religion makes it clear that this is not a 'habit' on my part, nor an unexamined remnant from my Muslim past. I am aware of the sense of the word 'vanity' in publishing lingo. I hope it is clear that there is no vanity in somebody's declaration of readiness to improve the lot of humankind --which, in the midst of electronic affluence, appears pretty miserable to me.
 * As I state on the blog site, many people will understand our religion better 'by the fruits of our work'. You can choose to be a facilitator of that kind of service, or you can do otherwise. Not only are good and evil options available to us, but also the sublime and the ridiculous --among others. Regards, Anseynol
 * Delete, NRM-cruft. — Phil Welch 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable. --Apyule 05:36, 22 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.