Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truths of Imovinn

Truths of Imovinn
 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 Redwolf24 06:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

nn, (nearly private) belief system. Nets a grand total of 45 Google hits for Imovinn, and two for Truths of Imovinn (no quotes). Basically promotion. Delete- DNicholls 02:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See also Votes for deletion/Imovinn.--DNicholls 03:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It might also be noted that both entries contain big chunks of copied text from the promoted site.--DNicholls 03:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia's policy to discriminate against religious belief systems simply on the basis of numbers? Yes, much of the text has been taken from the organization's web site. As it has adequately been described there, I saw no need to reword the descriptions. - Luna Faye
 * With all due respect to your beliefs, this is just a matter of whether this is an encyclopedic entry. WP is not a place for advertisement, or advocacy, and there must be a bar set for notability, as it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lastly, depending on who is writing this, it could even be considered original research. If the belief system becomes notable, I don't see an impediment to its inclusion, but it's just too soon. Thanks and all the best to you. --DNicholls 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete unless someone can prove notability and/or cite some legitimate references. Don't take it personally, Luna Faye. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not established. android  79  03:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn james gibbon  14:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What exactly would you consider "notability or legitimate references"? The Pæthieon of Imovinn is Incorporated by the state of Ohio, and is in the process of being recognized as non-profit under the fedreal 501c3 statute. I happen to be ordained by the Church of Spiritual Humanism and the Universal Life Church, and am registered with the state of Ohio to perform services in all Ohio counties. I hold Doctorates in Divinity and Metaphysics, and am a Certified Reiki Master. How much more "legitimate" would you like? - Luna Faye

And yet Spiritual Humanism does have a Wikipedida article and external link, though being considered less than notable? So precisely how many members does the Pæthieon of Imovinn require befor being consered "Notable"? - Luna Faye
 * Delete Lots of things are incorporated by the state of Ohio, but they are not all notable. Perhaps it's not entirely fair to rely on numbers - but numbers are, at the end of the day, the best way for the Wikipedians to judge impact, and impact is what speaks to notability, in my view. And yes, the internet-ordination-giving Universal Life Church is notable, though I wouldn't know if I would say that about the Church of Spiritual Humanism - Google indicates that far fewer people have even heard of it, its impact is likely less. But this is beside the point, Luna Faye. The notability of your religious affiliations won't convince people that another religion, which you are also interested in, is notable. If Billy Graham, George W. Bush, and Jesus got together and started a new relegion and, for whatever reason, relatively few joined or talked about it or cared, then it wouldn't be notable. Sirmob 04:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * the internet-ordination-giving Universal Life Church is notable: Ooh, thank you; this means that my ordination is notable. Wanna be ordinated too, Sirmob? (This may serve to impress the pious.) Costs nothing, takes only three minutes! Just click HERE, and then on the yellow tab "FREE ONLINE ORDINATIONS > MORE". -- Hoary 05:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, you'll notice that's the abstract term, which is notable, not the church. The church is just linked.--DNicholls 04:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, precisely how many members does the Pæthieon of Imovinn require befor being consered "Notable"? - Luna Faye
 * For me, it's less about numbers, and more about impact on the world at large. Your group might be important and interesting to its own members, but otherwise, no one is likely to care. Show us some verifiable, reliable sources that indicate interest in your group from the outside – newspaper or magazine articles, for example. It may be that your group is too new to have garnered any outside coverage, but that would then be part of the problem. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and you should not attempt to use it to promote your beliefs. android  79  04:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not Notable, but more importantly, the "List OF Truths" is a POV in itself. Hamster Sandwich 04:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment To claim you and your belief system are being discriminated against in this proceedure is offensive. Hamster Sandwich 04:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Here are two OUTSIDE articles that I had nothing to do with: Chronicles of Avalon http://www.chroniclesofavalon.com/current.html

Traditions Magazine http://www.traditionsmagazine.com/features.html

Be offended all you want. To claim that a belief system is not notable simply because it is new or does not have vast numbers of members simply is discrimination. This is not upholding the idea of "free, open content, community-built encyclopedia" that Wikipedia claims. Someone please tell me in no uncertain terms, since people can't seem to agree on what makes something notable, how many outside articles, or members Imovinn will require, so that I might know when to resubmit the article? - Luna Faye
 * Comment Luna Faye misunderstood my use of the word offensive. I meant it in the sense of one attacking another for disagreeing with their POV. I felt Luna Faye was being offensive by their implication that the discussion and reasoning for this topic to be considered for a vote for deletion was discriminatory. Luna Faye has however, indicated that they are comfortable with offending people. Good Luck, in your future endevor! Hamster Sandwich 05:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, WP is not an indiscriminate collection of info. There's no strict number, but as a general rule: when it's time for someone to submit an article for a religion, it won't be the founder submitting it. (And I am trying to say that in all charity, excuse me if it sounds harsh.)--DNicholls 04:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Good first rule of thumb. As I said, from my perspective it's rarely really about numbers, numbers are just often a good indicator of underlying impact. And I don't think additional sources exactly quoting you or written by you are ever going to count strongly towards the total. Sirmob 04:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no concrete number. Inclusion is determined by community consensus. We have set standards for some things, but not for religious groups (or so far as I am aware). I will have a look at your references at a later time. android  79  04:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Quote "when it's time for someone to submit an article for a religion, it won't be the founder submitting it." Well that doesn't make much sence. Who better than the founder of something to understand and describe it's ideas and principals? - Luna Faye


 * Answer: An objective, disinterested, outside observer. We don't want Oprah writing the article about Oprah, for example. As harsh as that might sound, we dedicated Wikipedians apply the same standard here. If you are a scientist, a religious movement, a politician, a corporate executive, or a professor, your impact and accomplishments have to be well-enough known for other people to write about them. Read the Neutral Point of View and What Wikipedia is Not guidelines for more info.
 * Honestly, no one is discriminating, except in the sense of making choices. It is no reflection on the validity or worthiness of the religion as a belief system. When we say not notable, we mean it hasn't had a broad effect on the world yet, and one of the Wikipedia guidelines is that you don't get to use this encyclopedia to help it achieve that notability. DavidH 05:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps someone without bias or personal interest who can write a fair, objective entry rather than copy and paste material from their promotional website? --TheMidnighters 05:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Quote "And I don't think additional sources exactly quoting you or written by you are ever going to count strongly towards the total." You're right, I did write the article for Traditions Magazine. I forgot I had written that one. My bad. I didn't however, even know about the other article untill recently doing a Yahoo search for Imovinn. I can't help it that the author chose not to alter the definition of Imovinn in any way. I'm not displeased by it, I just had nothing to do with it. - Luna Faye
 * Delete as promotion for insignificant "religion". -- Hoary 05:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a promotion for any philosophy. This is not a report on an existing entity. Nothing encyclopedic about this article. --Wetman 09:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If anyone can write a page about their religion which we are not permitted to delete on the grounds of political correctness, regardless of notability, then we might as well have a new page for every person on the planet. However I would be open to this page reappearing if the religion gains any kind of notability outside its followers on the Internet. Agentsoo 09:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all microfaiths (until their leaders have been crucified)--Doc (?) 12:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete just like not every law firm and doctor's office, filled with perhaps notable intellectuals, deserves an entry. Just because it's a "religion" doesn't give it special standing. Mmmbeer 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: Just a big list o' beliefs. This is non-discursive, not an article.  Are these beliefs significantly discussed and documented by outsiders that an encyclopedia needs to explain these matters?  If so, it should be easy to demonstrate newspaper, religious journal, and Google hits that will allay concerns.  What would not happen, though, is a list of apocrypha.  Geogre 17:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, microfaith without demonstrated external significance verified. Policy proposal:  Modify Doc Glasgow's proposal to read "Delete all microfaiths (until their leaders have been crucified 'by the government')."  Otherwise we'd be putting articles in every time somebody gets ticked off and kills the cult's founder.  Barno 00:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Eminently sensible. There should be some limits, after all. I second the motion. Hamster Sandwich 03:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn faith. JamesBurns 08:54, 27 July 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.