Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapienocraty

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. Nufy8 20:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Hoax/original work - "if you are fat you do not deserve food". Probably an advert for the "luciferian"/satanist webpage. Tεxτurε 15:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete slop. SaltyPig 15:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i know this group there very interesting they actually have very little to do with satanism why the writher used that i have no clue but there are a few errors i should change things like explaining the govermental system better and to explain there connection with spiritual socialism also micha van den bergs higher thoughts has very little to do with sapienocraty if you want to read about it i would pick heinrich muller his book has not been printed since the seventies but they should be online but i like the fact that the writher continued the movement into the present day most english speaking people here have no idea what sapienocraty is but they are better know in germany and holland (unsigned comment from User:85.146.24.65 at 15:47, 31 August 2005 --DavidConrad 10:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete No Google hits for "Sapienocraty" prob. hoax DV8 2XL 15:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ... only a closed mind would claim that you can write a word only one way .... Quite right. Deleet. Tonywalton  | Talk 18:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had sockpuppets, then I'd also vote dilete, dilleyte, dooliiyte and pdeielletteeeet. But I don't. Tonywalton  | Talk 18:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable in any way. Beginning 21:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Hoax verging on patent nonsense. MCB 01:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is semi-literate and of poor quality, with many misspellings including the title (-craty vs. -cracy). The only support for it here is from the same IP address as the creator of the article, and is written in the same style -- presumably the writer of the article, but he or she distances him- or herself from the "writher". Is the article then quoting some other work? Who is the "writher" of that work, and is it copyrighted? All of these problems could be resolved, but what would we be left with? An article on an unheard-of neologism that is unverifiable. The neologism does not even appear on any of the web sites given as sources. Strong delete --DavidConrad 10:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.