Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veritasism


 * 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. 12:23, 5 July 2011 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Veritasism" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veritasism) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Veritasism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about an unverifiable religion with no coverage in secondary sources. The proposed deletion was contested with the edit summary "Reason for deletion is insufficient, for sources back up the article and one can not deny the existence of a religion." However, the sources currently cited in the article do not mention a religion or Veritasism by name. Additionally, since the article was created by, I'm concerned that there may be an element of self-promotion (although not blatant advertising) and that a conflict of interest is present. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is indeed made by a name that is the same name of the religion, but with no intention of self promotion in any way. All views of this article are written from a neutral point of view (just as required by Wikipedia's guidelines), just as the Catholic people who contributed much of the Catholic Wikipedia page. The sources used did not mention the existence of Veritasism because Veritasism is not yet as large as many other religions. It is rather newly introduced to the world and is hoping to gain the same respect from the viewers of the page as the viewers of Judaism, Mormonism, Christianity and Islam get.-Veritasism (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I am pretty sure I can see no evidence of promotion in the text, the conflict of interest concerns me, as does the lack of any sources at all, let alone notable ones, when the religion was searched for. I would say Delete on the grounds that there appears to be nothing at all on the subject of this religion. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

All sources cited in the article support the beliefs of the religion do not acknowledge the religion's existence because it is not their purpose to. The purpose of the sources are to provide insight to the goals and beliefs of the religion. Also, as stated above, the religion is very new, however this does not provide any reason for the religion to be treated as anything less than what it is. -Veritasism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasism (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the sources you have used say that the religion does not exist, how can you back up claims of its existance? Also, if the religion is very new, how would it have been able to gather enough notability for it to warrant an article? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources do not in any way say that the religion does not exist, they are just on a different topic and do not mention any religion of any sort, for they are research articles/papers. As for the notability, I will say this. According to dictionary.com, a religion is: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. That is the guidelines of Veritasism, aside from the superhuman agency (which is clearly noted as not being accepted in Veritasism), and the followers of Veritasism follow these guidelines in the manner of any other organized religion. The followers alone verify the validity of the religion.-Veritasism (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, there could well be hundreds of different religions. The point I am trying to make is that whatever gets put on here needs to have notable, reliable sources whether it is a religion or a football team, and I do not believe that the article has notable, reliable sources. May I suggest you take a look at WP:NOTABILITY --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added a few more aspects to my article. Veritism is the set of beliefs from which Veritasism stems from. I urge you to read the works of Alfred Globus and then reconsider your views on deleting this article.-Veritasism (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Me reading the works of Alfred Globus will do nothing to change what I have already mentioned. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Then I know nothing else that can convince you the notability of Veritasism. I have presented you with proof of its existence and you outright objected to it. Alfred Globus writes about veritism and the set of beliefs that is uses, and Veritasism is almost literally veritism, but in an organized fashion. The system is believed to be written in the mid to late 1960s, so it is nothing new to the people who associate themselves with it.-Veritasism (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not "outright objected" to it at all. What I am saying is that its a bit silly trying to convince one user when such sources (if they exist) should be going into the article in order to prevent it from being deleted (which is, I assume, what you want). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 *  Kill with fire Delete: Discussion of this alleged religion is completely unreferenced and unverifiable. Clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:CRYSTAL, and is also written as essentially promotional material by one of its adherents. This is a likely candidate for WP:SNOW. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete The creator of the article seems to be under the impression that just because something exists means it is notable. It's important for information on Wikipedia to be verifiable, and I acknowledge that it is a real concept, but it is not sufficient.  The topic appears to have no scholarly impact as it has not been discussed in relevant journals.  It does not appear in news sources, and the hits for the Internet bring up forum and YouTube listings.  Veritasism is a slam-dunk candidate for not meeting WP:GNG and should be deleted fast per WP: SNOW. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 06:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only fractionally better than some kid's made up subject. &mdash; RHaworth 10:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be made up or unverifiable. All references provided are tangential at best, with no support for the core assertion of the article.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do Not Delete I, personally, have read much of Alfred R. Globus' works and he wrote an entire book on veritism. The religion, "Veritasism", whether is notable to the average reader or not, supports everything that Alfred Globus writes about. To my knowledge, this all seems to be not made up, Alfred Globus has been around for many years. -Fullinstinct (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Fullinstinct (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Then I'm sure you can provide the appropriate citations to support the assertions made here and in the article under consideration.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do Not Delete The argument that the article is not sufficiently referenced and unverifiable is irrelevant. There are many articles on wikipedia that don't have ANY sources to back them up. The sources in this article prove the basis of the religion. The source prove and show studies to back up the claims of the environmental effects on the human mind. Which was what the basis the article is about. I personally see no reason to delete that article. It is a new topic and one can not expect there to be others articles about this topic on the internet.-037adb (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — 037adb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. The whole thing's WP:BOLLOCKS from start to finish.— S Marshall  T/C 13:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See also WP:DUMB, point #3.— S Marshall T/C 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I am sensing hostility from your part whereas this is supposed to be from a neutral standpoint. All ideas and religion were created at one time by an individual or groups of individuals. By saying it is a stupid or irrelevant is close-minded of one. A person with views of that sort shouldn't be deciding whether articles are deleted or not, for they have a biased opinion on the subject.-Veritasism (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When it's time for the discussion to be closed, an independent administrator will make a decision on the matter. The decision will be based on the discussion points raised here, and particularly how the subject meets (or fails to meet) the Wikipedia guidelines for articles. The administrator will also discard or weigh lightly any arguments by editors with clearly biased opinions one way or the other or by single-purpose accounts, especially if there is the appearance that they were created just to skew the outcome. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nominator. Considering the SPAs involved, recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE I see this as a new growing religion, and it should be given a chance to prove to us that it can be notable, and be use to many people on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteezyVegas (talk • contribs) 07:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC) — SteezyVegas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * And yet another WP:SPA: . Why hasn't this been snow-closed yet? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If the sources don't verify the existence of the religion, but merely the overall concepts that the religion espouses, then it constitutes original research to collate those sources into proof of a religion whose existence can't otherwise be verified. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 5 July 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.