Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism (2nd nomination)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Matrixism
Relisted on Redirects for Deletion. Philwelch 00:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Hoax. The word gets a lot of Google hits, but all but one that I saw turn out to be blogs/bbs's-- someone's got way too much time on their hands. -- Mwanner 19:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) (note: originally posted on Talk:Matrixism)
 * Keep as a Redirect to New religious movement or New religious movement, include appropriate reference to Matrixism there. The Matrixism faith currently claims over 500 followers according to their FAQ.  May not be sufficiently significant to warrant its own article, nor an appropriate addition to the Matrix article, but it's a useful example of a Fiction-based New Religious Movement (especially one in its early development).  Although it could be a hoax, there's currently insufficient evidence either way, therefore removing references to it on that basis constitutes religious discrimination and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV.  KickAir8P~ 05:31, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * Implication that it is a bona fide religion despite any evidence is nonfactual and POV. Additionally, given that there is absolutely no independent evidence of its existence, references to "Matrixism" in Wikipedia constitute original research. Philwelch 15:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Inclusion in the New religious movement article (especially in the New religious movement section) does not imply that Matrixism is a "bona fide religion" due to the nature of NRMs, which is detailed in the article. That there is at least one person claiming sincere adherance to the Matrixism faith is an observable fact, and therefore not itself original research.  Although their assertion of 500+ converts may be non-factual, due to the nature of religious freedom burden of proof is on those claiming Matrixism is a hoax, and currently there's nothing other than negative data (specifically, that there's nothing indicating its existence but the website and a number of posts on various boards from a few IP addresses).  Under the circumstances, removing references to Matrixism soley because it might be a hoax asserts the POV that it is a hoax.  Removing references to it for other reasons (lacks numbers/significance for its own artcle, doesn't belong in articles about the movie) may well be valid, but these don't prevent reference to Matrixism in an article where it evidently does belong, specifically New religious movement;  and they should not prevent redirect of this stub to that article.  KickAir8P~ 16:49, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * A new religious movement that is only known to have "at least one" adherent (and not even that is known) is not encyclopedic. Philwelch 19:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not what makes it worthy of inclusion in New religious movement - the observable fact of at least one declared adherent means that the existence of Matrixism is not original research. KickAir8P~ 01:42, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
 * Very well. Delete and replace with a redirect (The Matrix would be most appropriate imho). Radiant_* 12:47, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * That was what was originally done, but all references to Matrixism in The Matrix were deemed unencyclopedic and removed in a recent RfC. Additionally, linkspamming vandals have taken the redirect as an invitation to linkspam The Matrix in the past, and now New religious movement. Philwelch 15:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that despite Philwelch's factually correct comment above, my inclusion of a reference to Matrixism in the New religious movement article (which included a link to the Matrixism website) was neither linkspamming nor vandalism. KickAir8P~ 16:18, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was just reading Guide to Votes for deletion, and it's possible that this shouldn't've been listed on Votes for deletion since it's not an article anymore but a redirect (most recently to New religious movement). See Guide to Votes for deletion and Redirects for deletion.  I have no idea how to fix this.  KickAir8P~ 21:35, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, I'll list it there later today, hopefully. Philwelch 22:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, hoax, and an attempted merge to the only article where a mention is merited was rejected. (As a redirect with content in its history that is no longer merged, this doesn't belong on WP:RFD, either.) &mdash;Korath (Talk) 12:05, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.