Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renpin


 * 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. JForget 01:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Renpin

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

PROD removed. Concern was WP:NOT (dictionary). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there are no google hits for the topic. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 14:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, will be blocking creator after this edit. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable religion. The only hits I find on Google are for this article.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 22:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, the references are most likely unintelligible to a large portion of the article's audience since they are Chinese only, there is no corresponzing zh article, there is no way to verify much of what is claimed, and what is claimed strongly suggests it's an article about an hoax religion. Moocha (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a hoax - at least some of it I'm familiar with, but it is pure OR. Delete as such. Tim Song (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold On Here. This does not seem like a particularly well-formed AfD. For one thing, there is a second AfD with a different reason concurrently in progress. That AfD is based on a claim of "sockpuppetry", which I don't know about but I presume has some good basis. But this AfD is based solely on a concern of "WP:NOT (dictionary)" But it seems to me that assuming that Renpin is real it is capable of being a lot more than just a dicdef. We do have articles on Morality and whatever. I think that the claim that this is just a dicdef fails on its face. However, two cogent claims have been made (but not in this AfD): 1) All the sources are in Chinese, which most of us can't read, and 2) the whole thing is a hoax.


 * The first point is true. However, although I can't read them very well, they seem real enough (note that additional sources are given on the article talk page). However, I think that they are just people's blogs, not real news stories. But then I imagine it is pretty difficult to get real stories about new religous phenomena from China. Recall that WP:SOURCES certainly does let us use foreign-language sources.


 * I'm not sure where the second allegation comes from. Perhaps from the statement "...new religion originated from Chinese online community", which certainly sounds fishy, although perhaps the person is just not expressing themselves clearly. Also the creator of the article seems overenthusiastic and for this he has been blocked, and then there are the allegations of puppetry at the other AfD.


 * Anyway, The AfD just says its a dicdef, and it would have been better if these other objections had been forwarded instad. And if we do have to delete the article, I think that we should recognize that the reason is "We at the English Wikipedia are insufficiently educated to be able to evaluate the sources", and not just jump all over this guy and his article. Herostratus (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's basically a neologism in Chinese, not a "religious phenomenon" but more like "I'm out of luck this time, so I'll have better luck next time", expressed using that neologism. These sources are either blogs (all the hi.baidu ones, which also do not even mention the word "religion") or totally unreliable (the baike.baidu one, which is like a Chinese copycat of WP except that it is almost without any editorial control whatsoever except being "harmonized"). Tim Song (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article says that the religion was created online, and I don't need to be able to read Mandarin to see that the cited sources are social networking/forum/blog somethings, simply from their formatting- not reliable, published sources, even in Chinese.  Of course, notable religions can arise online (like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance), but I just can't see any reason to think that this is one of them.  Happy to change my mind if someone finds better sources- even if they aren't in English. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:23, 1 June 2010 (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.