Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neutranity


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutranity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A philosophy seemingly made-up in school one day. No sources, nothing from a Google search suggests this is notable. 28bytes (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It is not my intention to bite what appears to be a new comer but the author might wish to begin here, Policies and guidelines should he/she consider writing another article. Here is what Wikipedia is not. Items 2.2 and 2.3 might be of special interest to the author.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The "religion" is a hope for those who have nothing to believe in. Why take away hope, when it's simply a single page on Wikipedia? Maybe there's a person out there who is about to give up hope, and then, he discovers and reads the page: the page may just be the persons last hope before loosing all faith. Why delete hope, when it's just a single page on Wikipedia?
 * Defend. Of course there will be no sources (yet), when this "religion" is newly formed. This is just a beginning;

The page will grow and more information will be added: references from the Christian Bible will be included, quotes will be added and more symbolism will be added and explained. Don't kill Neutranity, believe in it and give it hope, give somebody else hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.houstrup (talk • contribs) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a webhost. This belongs somewhere else on the internet. If in the future it's covered in reliable secondary sources, then it might be time to have an encyclopaedia article on it, but that time is not here now. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Defend. I truly understand, that Wikipedia is NOT a web host. But I already know 2 people, who found the article helpful.

Wikipedia is all about learning stuff, right? And the article might be new and unfinished, but it's pure wisdom and truth. The article is for people who SEARCH for help and answers, so why delete something, that might count as an answer?

I have always been taught, that if you believe in something, then you must never give up hope. And the article might be new, but it has already helped people, who searched for help. It has given hope and knowledge. So why remove the opportunity to get an answer?

My friends and I are working hardly to give people hope, to teach people that they must fight for what they want, and Neutranity is a great help for those, who feel lost and not cared about. We are researching the Christian Bible for further answers and references. Why we do this? Profit, you might think? No, no profit. Fame, you might think? No, no fame! Love, is the answer. We want to give a chance to everyone - we want everyone to feel welcome.
 * Delete; as well intentioned as this may be, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 13:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

But why kill and remove something of pure and good purpose?

And as mentioned before, the article will get references from the Bible itself. How much more nobility do you need? At least give it some time. Give a chance, how cold hearted can people be? I thought, that Wikipedia was all about helping people learn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.houstrup (talk • contribs) 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read the link I gave you above? Good cause≠notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And I thought about it; Although this is for a good cause, it's still a religion. And some other religions are for a good cause too, but are they noble? Is the Bible noble? Do we have evidence, and is that evidence noble? Nothing is completely noble, but what makes the different things and religions noble then? We do. Our beliefs do.
 * Defend. Yes, I read the article you linked.

I can make this more noble, and I'm working on it. But I need at least a week, before I have all the references, which can make the article more noble. I have collected a lot of documents and information from e.g. the Bible, and I'm also working with other things, so it is very hard for me, to make it all happen fast.

And I also understand that the article is NOT completely noble. And it would be acceptable, if the article would be marked as "Not noble" or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.houstrup (talk • contribs) 14:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable, made-up philosophy / religion - no results on Google web or news searches or other evidence of notability. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the article seems non-noble, because there are YET no references. But they will come, the article and I need more time.
 * Defend. The article needs time. Try reading the article, and ask yourself: "Why would you delete it?"

And also, how can it return any Google searches, if it's a newly formed religion? M.houstrup (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. A new religion that was made up at school one day. No sources whatsoever. Even the text is very vague, it's hard to distinguish what's the point of this religion other than "think positive and try to do good things". J I P  &#124; Talk 18:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Defend.I agree, that the article has no sources, but so far, I have found 2 references from the Christian Bible (I haven't yet included them), and these references have a huge influence on the religion. But is there anything better, than if we all thought positive, did good things and lived a great life? And about the language: It's probably a bit (or very) poor, but you are more than welcome to help and re-write some of the sentences, as long as you keep the moral.

But although the religions point seems very nude and unclear, there's more to it, than "just" being positive.

If you have a bad time, when everything just seems shit*y, then what could be better, than someone telling you that you're worth more? That you're welcome and that there's always someone, who will care about you? That's the point of this religion: Love! M.houstrup (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - the only reference to Neutranity in Google Books this: URL http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Neutranity&btnG=Search+Books and has nothing to do with the content of this article. As other editors have indicated, see what Wikipedia is not. Govynn (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Defend I just don't understand why you people oversee the fact that this is only for a better purpose? That the article is to help people, and give them hope. Sigh. It just frightens me how cold some people are these days. Who does this article hurt?

But instead of deleting the article, is it at least possible to "hide" it, so I can work on it, and then ask for a review, when I finally have included sources and references? M.houstrup (talk)

And this is how the flame of a new hope goes out.


 * Hope is the poor man's bread.
 * -George Herbert


 * Delete. The article makes no assertion of notability, and the total lack of sources (which the entry's author conceded above) means that notability cannot be established. Dawn Bard (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2011 (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.