Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religiopath


 * 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. -Docg 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Religiopath

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Editors have resisted suggestion to add sources. The article reads like OR and is basically a platform for a (admittedly recently coined) neologism. The NPOV tag has been repeatedly removed and the prod tag was removed. Without sources documenting use, this article is the perfect example of how to fail WP:NEO. janejellyroll 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Completely original research.  Gan  fon  21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Not only OR, but I'm calling WP:COI here. Check edit history on the article. --Dennisthe2 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete this is a joke. KazakhPol 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the article, "Being a recently coined term, it is still not commonly used in a widespread manner." Nuf said. Edison 23:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not know if it is a joke, or an attempt to make a serious article; I hope not. It is a neologism attracting only 11 unique GHits.--Anthony.bradbury 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete word that the article itself acknowledges to be a neologism ("Being a recently coined term"), that the article itself acknowledges to lack notability ("it is still not commonly used in a widespread manner"), and that the article itself acknowledges is found only in a source that does not meet the reliable source guidelines ("However, the effects of religiopathy have been discussed on numerous Ezboard message boars starting in November 2006."). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete religioncruft. JuJube 01:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources have been added noting that it is not an original source.  Prior newspaper discussions of the word have been noted.  --Leofff 06:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — Leofff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. As a neologism, this is mostly self-explanatory, and inherently PoV.  - Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Updated information would seem to indicate that this article no longer violates the neologism guidelines.  It should be modified, but not deleted.   - WikAA1 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — WikAA1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Agree with above.  Updates to the article contain proper references to primary sources.  But it should be modified to remove the POV.  - Talkingfish2 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — Talkingfish21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Agree with above.  Updates to the article contain proper references to primary sources.24.27.7.198
 * Delete - If the word is actually in wide usage (which you couldn't prove by me), it is certainly too new for the kind of analysis (division into "camps" and analysis of the "nature") that this page purports to report on. The fact that the creator of the article ("Leoff") appears also to be author of the only link (& reference) provided on the site makes it seem all the more that this is OR, and possibly advert.  Pastordavid 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - no citations merely assertions they exist. Addhoc 12:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Here's my beef on deleting this.  It's a real word, independently noted in verifiable sources.  It has gained a prominence amongst a certain subset of the internet.  It's a term and it means something.  It describes a belief that is held amongst a large number of people.  Wikipedia has 1.3 or so million entries.  On what basis can this be legitimately excluded? madeup 22:03, 19 January 2007 (Nfld Time)
 * Keep I have substantially modified the article.  madeup 23:15, 19 January 2007 (Nfld Time)
 * 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.