Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 May 5
2007 May 7 >

6 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pacers Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was not in violation, still confused as to why it was deleted Vapacersfan 17:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks to have been an A7, an article on a website that did not establish the notability of its subject. It was also written as a first-person personal essay, and was nothing even remotely close to an encyclopedia article. I endorse deletion as a valid A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid speedy A7 as website with no assertion of notability. Indeed, a majority of the article is an essay about why this individual created this site, and is devoid of any content in terms of WP:WEB. The creator of the article is also asked to refer to WP:COI and WP:SPAM (per "I hope all of you find time to stop by Pacers Nation and at least check it out"). --Kinu t/c 23:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - these fan sites need at least one secondary source attesting to their notability and here there are none; I would also have deleted it as an A7 if I had got to it first! TerriersFan 03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion- as a valid A7, failed WP:N, first person WP:COI and I would have deleted it as same also.--Dakota 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - quite obvious speedy A7. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Slave hack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
See also: Slave Hack

Previously, the article was deleted because there were no third-party independent reviews. After the article was deleted, I located [1]. Although it is only one review, it does verify some of the content that was mentioned in the article before it was deleted. That review, by the way, is from PC Gamer UK. Aquatics Guard Alert 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, but feel free to recreate. It was deleted due to being blatant advertising, not because it had no sources. -Amarkov moo! 16:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The reason for why the article was deleted was because it seemed to be blatant adverising due to the lack of sources. That's what it looks like to me, anyway. Aquatics Guard Alert 17:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That's not... entirely accurate. It was speedily deleted because it was an advertisement. The deletion decision had nothing to do with sources, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. The deletion rationale I provided was, I assumed, rather clear: "WP:CSD General criteria, subsection 11 - Blatant advertising. Page exclusively promotes a company, product, group, or service without realistic encyclopedic rewrite." If this isn't a clear explanation, I apologize, but I try to provide clear rationale whenever I delete something. I'd be glad to userfy it somewhere. The person who originally created the page hasn't edited in a month, but I can move it there, or to your userspace if you'd like to take on the job, Aquatics. Realistically, it's going to need a bottom-up complete rewrite, but if you're volunteering, let me know. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, found an AfD here. I still say to just recreate it, though. -Amarkov moo! 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Shareasale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

COI accusations, Notability was established, Sockpuppetry roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 14:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against the decision.

1. Notability was clearly established in the AfD debate

2. COI accusations were not warranted, which was also established in the AfD debate. The article was created by a user who meets the COI criteria. I did inform the user of this and strongle discouraged him to continue to make edits on the article. Since I contributed in the past to the same subject and the creation of an article for ShareASale was on my to-do list (can be verified by going the edit log of my userpage where it clearly shows that I added it to my to-do list long before the article was actually created). Any accusation that I meet the criteria for COI in this matter in very far fetched. I made clear what my relationship with the company is and what it is not.

3. User:Anthony Appleyard did not provide much arguments during the discussion. I provided multiple references that shows that WP:CORP is met. I asked him also to clarify his vague statement "looks like an advertisement to me". I also recommended that he might want to change any parts of the article that are "advertisement".

4. I question the comments by User:Dimitrii and believe that he is a sockpuppet by looking at his contribution history which consists only of AfD debate comments, Mass Replace "Celtic" to "Celt" in numerous articles, Disambiguate "Celtic" to "Celtic xxxx", Disambiguate "John Warren" to "John Warren xxxx", Disambiguate "Fredericksburg to "Fredericksburg xxxx" and Disambiguate "Cimmeria" to "Cimmeria xxxx" plus a few minor edits, which include the rv of spam. This was pretty much all what this user contributed to Wikipedia during the last 15 months. The comments made in the debate were as vague as the statements made by User:Anthony Appleyard.

I recommend to revert the deletion of the article. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 14:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - WP:CORP requires non-trivial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. So far the article itself listed references as the company itself, blogs and associations (i.e. not independent). The AFD showed some directory type listings and a you tube video of their booth at a trade show which apparently "Shows that we deal with a WP:CORP here.". --pgk 15:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you also see the video where the CEO of the company received the award from the largest tradeshow of the industry where the company belongs to? Also the references to the leading print publication of the industy. The industry, Affiliate marketing, is not that large, only about 6 billion dollars in commissions are being generated by affiliates annually plus an unknow number of revenue generated by vendors, such as affiliate networks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 20:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All that and no reliable source outside "the industry" has given non-trivial coverage to them? Industry association awards etc. tend not to be that impressive, where are the broader references? --pgk 20:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just discovered one of the problems of the affiliate marketing industry. Just look at the coverage of Google's purchase of Doubleclick. Performics was mentioned as search engine marketing company, but they are a lot more. They are also one of the largest affiliate networks out there and do search engine marketing for their clients as well (as most affiliate networks do). Nobody of the big press even mentioned that. Its a niche and that alone does not make it irrelevant or not noteworthy. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I personally think it should be deleted, but only four people ever saw this, and that only if you count the closing admin. -Amarkov moo! 16:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    <pedantry>Only 3 people expressing an opinion is not the same as only those 3 + admin seeing it, AFD has no quorum </pedantry> --pgk 18:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist so more people can see, and -- just possibly -- edited while on AfD to respectable status. The possibility of editing is one reason for letting articles run their full time at AfD. (And it does happen:each day that several of the articles up at AfD do get re-edited adequately--there are a number of editors who will fo it if it seems feasible.)DGG 18:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify? The AFD was open for 7 days, 2 more than letting it run it's full time at AFD. --pgk 18:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The latest version of the article is not available anymore, unfortunately. It was already partially re-edited and I also encouraged people that were involved in the discussion to go over it and make changes too. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 20:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Matrixism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD 1|Most recent AfD - Please note - there have not been any further completed AfDs)

Deletion history:

Sigh, the saga never ends. This page has been speedied out of process nearly two dozen times at this point, erroneously endorsed here against proper procedure on 19 March. A new version was started by Neil (talk · contribs) and expanded by others in userspace and eventually moved to article space once it was sufficiently dealt with concerning prior issues. Of course, the AfD closes within a few days anyway. So here we are - the pseudo(?)-religion has been noted as an example of alternative/net-based religions in media on three continents as well as a few books, and notability is thus established through said reliable sources. Much of the discussion revolved around the red herring of the (albeit unfortunately-hosted) Geocities site that's generally regarded as the "official" site of said "religion," thus meeting WP:RS/WP:V but still being dismissed as a useful source elsewhere. So here we sit - I do request that someone undelete the history of the most recently deleted version so people can see what we're working with, and take it from there, but, given that it meets all our relevant standards, we should do the right thing and undelete the article. badlydrawnjeff talk 05:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse deletion - Neil should have come here first before jumping the gun and moving his replacement into main space. So now it's here where it belongs. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - We don't know who is behind this so-called religion, we don't know if anyone really adheres to it, we don't have any interviews with purported believers and we have no clue where the Web site came from. It's completely possible that the whole thing was made up in school one day. None of the reliable sources found actually look into the so-called "religion" - they just repeat what's found on the anonymous Web site. Until and unless we have some reliable sources which amount to more than "there's this Web site on the Internet called Matrixism," there's nothing we can reliably or verifiably say about it. FCYTravis 06:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing can be found that is verifiable or notable. Sr13 (T|C) 09:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, profound lack of independent critical sources. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - vote counting, there was more consensus to delete, and also at least two delete votes along the lines of WP:USEFUL. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 12:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and continue the AFD. The AFD was closed early on the basis of wp:csd#g4, apparently. But, reading the March 19 DRV, I gather that Neil's version was not substantially identical to (and in fact was substantially distinct from) the version that was deleted via AfD #2. So g4 does not apply.

    This is not just a process-wonking recommendation; there are reliable sources about this, um, religion (or whatever it should be called), so it is not clear to me that the outcome of the AfD will be to delete. So WP:SNOW does not apply either.

    Since others have made AFD-type arguments above even though this is DRV, I'll now make an AFD argument too. We describe things on Wikipedia the way they're described in reliable sources. The best way to present the information on Matrixism on Wikipedia would be in the same context it's presented in those sources. The sources on Matrixism feature it as one of many "minor religions." The phenomenon described in the sources is that of these "religions" in general. So, Matrixism does not pass the primary notability criterion. This means that a merge to somewhere might be in order, or a re-factoring of the article Matrixism as being about all the minor religions discussed by the academics that were mentioned in the AFD, of which Matrixism is only one. Deletion is not called for. Pan Dan 13:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion As held up in many AfDs and DRVs. A Geocities-hosted internet gag religion, which even by its own self-reported numbers has only a few hundred adherents. Even if we blindly assume their number is true, it's well below any number of small-town churches all over the world. Bottom line: hopelessly not notable even using its own numbers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - of the sources I could get to from a Google cache of the article, I saw only one-sentence comments about this. Can't read the books or anything else, but really, I think the fact that all of the arguments over all these different AFDs, DRVs and everything else have set consensus: right now, this is not notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion legitimate deletion Sleep On It 21:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sort of comment puzzles me - what part of the deletion was legitimate? Which one? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • deletion as a whole was legitimate. Sleep On It 21:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How so? There hasn't been a legitimate deletion yet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Jeff, there are two forms of legitimate deletion. The form where we slavishly follow every step of process until we have wearied our bones with yping, and the form which looks at an article that remains stubbornly free of non-trivial independent sources after many, many attempts at re-creations and says "time to move on". This is the latter kind. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, if it ever becomes one I think most of us will leave. Applying Clue, this is a WP:NFT failure whose fans have thus far failed to astroturf it to the giddy heights of a Wikipedia article. We don't need it. We have better things to do than help people who lack the wit even to break out of Geocities. Time Cube this is not. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • This isn't the latter kind, because this isn't "stubbornly free" of anything, including sources. "Applying clue," this probably should have never been deleted in the first place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion pending confirmation of reliable sources - FCYTravis's argument of

    We don't know who is behind this so-called religion, we don't know if anyone really adheres to it, we don't have any interviews with purported believers and we have no clue where the Web site came from. It's completely possible that the whole thing was made up in school one day. None of the reliable sources found actually look into the so-called "religion" - they just repeat what's found on the anonymous Web site. Until and unless we have some reliable sources which amount to more than "there's this Web site on the Internet called Matrixism," there's nothing we can reliably or verifiably say about it.

    — User:FCYTravis
    .

Also, it's another "-ism" that is unverifiable, as per Janicism and Briefsism - there isn't any reason to undelete it, currently. When reliable sources are found, it can be recreated/undeleted. --SunStar Net talk 21:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion and salt, paucity of google hits, a geocities website which fails WP:RS fails WP:N. User:FCYTravis sums it up well. --Dakota 05:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until and unless there are reliable sources that make more than a one-off passing mention of this "religion." *** Crotalus *** 09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and let the damned thing go through process This deletionism is really getting to me. Hell if you have to, userfy it or something. Has anyone mentioned the Scotsman link yet? It seems pretty attributable and notable to me. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd hardly call a brief mention of one paragraph in a throwaway "lifestyle" section of the paper (Scotsman or NYTimes or otherwise) in the spirit of WP:RS. Besides, even the article states "Matrixism started as a spoof on the internet, but now claims to have 500 genuine followers"... it appears that even the Scotsman don't buy the WP:RS-icity of the one Geocities site that this is mentioned on. --Kinu t/c 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you reading the "claims" as a loaded, stressed word used in the context of disbelief? Because for me to read it that way I'd really need it italicized in the Scotsman mention. What happened to assuming good faith? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse activities described in nomination alone merit to keep these deleted. Again, reliable sourceS influence my decision here Bulldog123 13:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per FCYTravis. --Fang Aili talk 17:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since FCYTravis's argument appears to have impressed so many, I'd like to explain why it unimpressed me. The status of Matrixism as a religion is irrelevant. Who made it up is irrelevant. How many adherents it has, if any, is irrelevant. Call it a mere website if you want. The fact is that this website has been noted and described by writers independent of the website, and details about it have been published in reliable sources. Thus not only are these details verifiable, but repeating them in a Wikipedia article is not original research. (By contrast, the typical Geocities website has never been noted in independent sources, so repeating details about the typical Geocities website in Wikipedia is original research.) It's also irrelevant whether the Matrixism website was literally "made up in school one day," since WP:NFT only applies, as that policy of course explains, to things that are made up in school one day that are not verifiable in 3rd party sources. Isn't that obvious? Pan Dan 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Additionally, the standards this one's being held to are silly. We allow stuff in BLP just because newspapers (re)published some author's official bio as part of a feature on an author or her/his book. It's not like papers actually generally fact check that stuff, but it makes it into our articles because it was published by a reputable source. The kind of double-thinking, double-checking folks are doing for this article is not consistent because people feel like they're getting hoaxed, but the lack of fact checking here in the Scotsman link and others is of similar magnitude to the kind that we let pass quite fine into biographies of living persons pretty much constantly. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, WP:NFT. >Radiant< 08:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Educate me. Why does WP:NFT apply here, given that WP:V and WP:NOR are met? Pan Dan 11:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Additionally, some people dissent with your assertion that V and NOR are met. >Radiant< 13:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) On your first point, WP:NOT#IINFO has nothing to do with WP:NFT. Don't tell me you didn't know that. You must also know that WP:NOT#IINFO is abused as a catchall by novice WP:IDON'TLIKEIT AFD voters who can't think of a reason to delete that's actually based in policy. Who are you really, and what have done with the real, non-novice Radiant? On your second point, no one has denied (except for Sr13, and he's wrong) that there are things that can be reported on Wikipedia about this website that pass WP:V and WP:NOR. The real dispute is over whether Matrixism is notable, i.e. whether the sources are sufficiently in-depth. I happen to think that the answer is no, and that Matrixism is not notable. Either way, lack of notability is never an automatic ground for deletion. Given the sources that are available in this case, a merger or refactoring would be appropriate. (Never mind that DRV is an entirely inappropriate forum for these kinds of arguments.) Pan Dan 13:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I'm my own evil twin. In my experience, any point being defended with personal remarks is not worth defending. Lack of notability has been a reason for deletion for years now. >Radiant< 14:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I intended those remarks as a sign of respect for a Wikipedia veteran. But you're right, sarcasm wasn't appropriate. Sorry. I've struck 'em.

              My point that WP:NOT#IINFO is irrelevant stands. WP:NOT#IINFO is a specific list of things that Wikipedia articles should not be, and this article was not on the list. On the second point, non-notability is a ground for deletion when merger or refactoring is not possible. In this case, it was possible. Pan Dan 14:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete Matrixism is covered in depth in The Joy of Sects by Sam Jordison. This is a reference book on cults and new religious movements. It treats Matrixism equally alongside Kaballah, Scientology and Freemasonry. Matrixism is also discussed at length in Phil Johnson's blog Circle of Pneuma. Phil Johnson is the author of several books including; Jesus and the gods of the New Age Clifford & Johnson Victor Books 2003 and Riding the Rollercoaster: How the Risen Christ Empowers Life Clifford & Johnson Strand 1998. Therefore the blog Circle of Pneuma is a reliable and citable source as defined by Wikipedia policy. The arguments for deletion given above have been made without considering these facts. D166ER 13:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete This is a stupid perversion of a religion I happen to believe in. Nevertheless, if it's well documented, I don't see a reason it shouldn't go back, however I still consider it religioncruft. JuJube 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. It doesn't matter if an article is speedied 400 times. If the 401th time is well-referenced, then it should stay. Rockstar (T/C) 00:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been recreated at User:Matrixism. JuJube 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for AFD -- My sentiment on the article itself is still Keep, there were some reputable citations in the article last time I saw it, but it should go through the full discussion process. Smee 04:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - the blog link given is yet again nothing more than a regurgitation of what's on the Geocities Web site. There are still zero actual independent looks at this putative "religion" and we cannot possibly take an anonymous freely-hosted Web site at its word. There are zero interviews with any purported believers. There is zero documentation of anything related to the so-called religion. By contrast, new religious movement articles such as Endeavor Academy are well-referenced to external sources which verify the group's existence, doctrine, membership and so forth. Everything we've seen related to this so-called religion all comes back to a single Web site hosted on Geocities. Absent that site, there is nothing to show that this thing actually exists. FCYTravis 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then view the article's subject as a noted website describing a dubious religion, instead of a dubious religion described by an unreliable website. And re-word the article accordingly, or better yet, refactor to an article whose subject is the same as the subject of the listed sources, which is broader than Matrixism. Pan Dan 12:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply FCYTravis, your analysis of the independent blog article by Phil Johnson is what is consider to be "independent research" and is not allowed according to Wikipedia policy. Also you understate or misrepresent the amount of research he has done. According to Wikipedia Policy the article is reliable and its findings are independent of your (unreliable, unpublished) analysis. 206.124.144.3 15:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I the only person who absolutely cannot understand what Pan Dan and anony said here? JuJube 01:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - I never saw the original article, but my understanding was that this was a new article and not a recreation, and thus that the speedy deletion was inappropriate. I agree with assorted others above that (particularly in light of the Scotsman mention) this falls into the "notable hoax" category; possibly the article should be made clearer that it seems unlikely that this is a genuine religion, but the fact that it's being discussed is, I think, enough to warrant a keep, and certainly didn't warrant a speedy delete. In addition, I don't believe the most recent AfD nomination was valid as it gave no reason other than "Needs community approval". The article in its final version was better sourced (6 legitimate sources, not including the geocities page) than probably 90% of articles of similar length — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AfD Enough notability is established by the version at User:Matrixism that it should go through a full AfD. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I can't understand how something with 3 AFDs and 2 deletion reviews can be called "speedied out of process". Sourcing from a Geocities website? Give me a break. One paragraph in a Scotsman column, referenced from that Geocities website? Really give me a break. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. What Calton said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, strong overturn, and send to AFD if needs be. Jeff missed out the most recent AFD discussion, and the one that is particularly pertinent - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism (3rd nomination). Please note that the same person opened and closed this AFD discussion. The role of DRV is to determine if process has been followed; it has not. I hope that this evidence being presented very late does not mean that it is irrelevant (apologies - I've been on Wikibreak), and I hope the DRV closer takes note of the fact few of the participants above will revisit this discussion at this late date (missing the pretty important link in question). As for the merits of the articles in question, it was sufficiently referenced to exist (the geocities site was an external link, not a reference - it had 2 media and 3 print journal references). Neil (►) 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Sometimes people forget it, but WP:N is not a game where WP:AFD is the court, WP:WEB is the goal and two articles with the subject somewhere in the body wins you enough points for an article. It's about our central goal, providing reliable and therefore accurate content, verified by sources that have done their fact-checking. If there's nothing we can say and back up apart from the existence of a website and what this website claims about itself, we can't write an encyclopaedia article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At the moment, there's probably a headcount that indicates that this may not survive. If the DRV closer can bother to look at the weight of arguments combined with what DRV actually exists for, they'll notice that this article has only been through one full AfD (which resulted in a merge over a year ago, which is an editorial decision), and nearly two dozen improper speedy deletions. Furthermore, the most recent AfD was closed by the same person who initiated it. Furthermore, there are plenty of endorse arguments that, when read closely, could very well aid in the arguments to overturn the argument, such as needing "accurate content, verified by sources that have done their fact checking" (which would include the multiple mainstream media mentions). Beyond that, there's still significant discussion as to what constitutes enough sources for this article anyway, which, truly, is beyond the mission of DRV. There is no other legitimate result other than to relist. Any other result is against the mission, intent, and spirit of DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion. How many people are stating here that if an article is well referenced it shouldn't be deleted? Well let's make this clear: the article was not well referenced. I made my reasoning for this very clear in the AFD but I will do so again here for those who didn't read it or contribute to it. In the references, there were two or three books that made passing references to this, merely as an example to how films can spawn "religious" groups and nothing more. There was then a university article that merely paraphrased the content of one of these books. There were then two news articles. The first, from the Sydney Morning Herald, was merely an interview by the author of that aforementioned university article. The only real details about the Matrixism that it mentioned were that the religion "claims 300 adherents" (no justification was given for this claim). The second news article, from the Scotsman's light-hearted "living" section was written by a guest author and again gave no more than a passing description of a religion that "now claims to have 500 genuine follows". Note the use of the word "claims" again and the fact that this was not a news article but a magazine extract. So I don't believe that any of those references are non-trivial and, even if they were, the only content that we could get from them about Matrixism would be "Matrixism is a religion based on the film the Matrix which claims to have 500 followers". That's it. All the other information that was in the article is sourced to a geocities article which claims to be the official website. This is not a reliable source and there is not even any evidence that this website is in anyway official. So please, endorse this deletion. We don't need another discussion at AFD and we certainly don't need this article. Will (aka Wimt) 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist if they insist; it'll get AFDed easy due to the blatantly obvious notability/verifiability issues. Its not a big deal if process has to be gone through; the result will be the same. —Dark•Shikari[T] 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
HIPC (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|RfD)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Generic topic says "This "(disambiguation)" redirect page should always be created for the Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages listing." Link to the RfD. If the disambiguation guideline is incorrect, it should be updated instead. -- JHunterJ 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Amarkov moo! 00:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_6&oldid=1088119388"