Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boism

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. joe decker ^talk 00:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. Up until a few days ago, this article existed as a redirect to Marxism. I believe that redirect was a hoax, as it was based on the original article content claiming that Boism was a philosophy created by Bo Li (an unknown philosopher) in his book Boism, Marks, and the Modern-Day Decline of Capitalism (a book unknown to the major book search engines). Then, in recent days, a new user has come along to override the redirect and claim the creation of a new religion. I reverted the vandalism, and nominated the redirect for deletion (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 29), but the new user insists on having this new religion article. As neither the new religion, nor the original redirect, are valid articles, I nominate the page for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references and an obvious hoax. H.dryad (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keepplease keep my article, this is a new religion please stop oppressing me. BoistFeb (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious joke/hoax article. /wiae /tlk 15:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G3 and block the creator for persistent edit warring. This religion supposedly founded yesterday is an obvious hoax to the point of vandalism. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G3 Patent nonsense. I think that Leap year and February are interesting. Nevertheless, this is less credible than Scientology, writer is not L. Ron Hubbard, does not purport to have Tom Cruise as an adherent (but notability is not inheritable) and there is no evidence of WP:GNG, WP:Notability or WP:SIGCOV. By its terms this was a creation of four adherents who met (literally) yesterday. It all smacks of being a WP:Hoax. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obvious case of WP:MADEUP. Blythwood (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2016 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.