Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Space Shark

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 deleted by RHaworth. Non-admin closure. Cliff smith ^talk 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Space Shark

Non-notable pseudo-religion, best source is a personal website on Freewebs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article serves as an easy to read source for people who wish to get quick info on this new internet religion/belief/phenomenon/etc. to discuss on messageboards, in internet communities, etc. Deleting a source of information does nothing to help the subject to those that wish to debate it and know what is being discussed/thought thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duder99 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not exempt it from WP standards. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitting it for verifiability basically suggests that any religion that hasn't been around for years and has a huge following with many documents published on it isn't good enough to have an entry, thus limiting those with open minds. --Duder99 (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can try again when it is established. But that is not going to happen through Wikipedia and does not happen in half an hour, as I just saw that the article was speedily deleted before: 01:28, 10 August 2008 Sam Blacketer (Talk | contribs) deleted "Giant Space Shark" ‎ (A7 (web): Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance) (from the deletion log) Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it had been speedily deleted before because of lack of any sources at all. And considering that Wikipedia is a great source and widely used for information on the internet, considering this is a recently popular internet discussion topic, I figured this would be a great place to find the basic info to learn and discuss until it is able to grow further. --Duder99 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd like to note that Vampire Lifestyle is in a similar position, but is notable because it is prolific, which this is not. Nonetheless, Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, and this smacks of original research. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As non-notable, unverifiable nonsense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Boffob (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged Speedy A7 (group). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone who wants it deleted is a bigot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.196.203 (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) — 24.15.196.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Somebody found it funny enough to put it on Uncyclopedia.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it got deleted there too. " * 01:01, 10 August 2008 RAHB (Talk | contribs) huffed "Giant Space Shark" ‎ (All very interesting. It's not funny though. Oh and also UNCYCLOPEDIA IS NOT WIKIPEDIA'S TRASH BIN!)" --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. No idea how or why it got there. Though they apparently found it interesting.--Duder99 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V, no sources, and there's no chance that any will ever be available. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gunnar: lacks verifiability through reliable sources. Cliff smith ^talk 01:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A freewebs page is not a verifiable reference for a made-up religion Cocomonkilla (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But how do religions truly get a "reference" or "source" to stop being made-up? When somebody writes a book about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.87.54 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, actually. That is almost precisely it. See WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't need sources. It needs faith. And I have faith. Coles (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While faith will keep the thing going, it will not justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a religion, it has a right to be here along with the other ones. It has a source. It's fine. If people want to get to know this religion, they should be able to find it here. Tsaturo (talk)— Tsaturo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Once they can find it in many other places, we would doubtless welcome an article on it here with open arms. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, partly based on the above. How do you verify the sources for a religion, anyway? Religions are based on beliefs, and only very rarely actual facts that can be proven and backed up 100% by a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.87.54 (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC) — 65.185.87.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You understand, of course, that you must sign in to vote, right? Thank you for your comments, though. The thing of this is not that we seek to prove the religion. If that were the case, it is correct that we would have no articles on faith at all! The problem is that some of us are having issues verifying this whole thing, and Wikipedia generally accepts only notable things (see WP:NOTE) besides. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. I much appreciate this answer, as I was just confused on what kind of "source" or "verification" a set of beliefs could possibly have. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.87.54 (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability. ... discospinster _talk 02:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - silly nonsense which should have gone to PROD. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a source for new Internet religions. --HidariMigi (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's obviously not a discussion forum. But it is a source of info that can be referred to in discussions, can it not? Calling this "silly nonsense" is extremely unfair, as is calling anybody's beliefs nonsense.--Duder99 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- useless case of new internet religion that is far from credible.TheHeroOfTheDawn (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)— TheHeroOfTheDawn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete: Rather amusing, but in all likelihood a WP:HOAX. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The single ref also looks like a WP:SPS violation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Obviously a hoax perpetrated by a single individual who is solely responsible for its existence. Just follow Duder99's argument, and look for anything independent of him - it doesn't exist. 03:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macspaunday (talk • contribs)
- A hoax perpetrated by me and not existing anywhere else? "http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=8&topic=44764233" Is one such place I've found discussing it without searching the web too hard. I'm fine with it being taken down because of not having a verifiable source, I understand that. But to say it's a hoax? That's unfair and giving me far too much credit.--Duder99 (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly a speedy A7 case. Looks to be somebody's idea of a public joke. No independent sources and no evidence of notability of any kind. Nsk92 (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, A7 is limited to organizations (and a few other things)... as this is clearly not an actual organization, and neither a (blatant) hoax, I don't think we can quite do that. However, we can probably use WP:SNOW in a bit. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2008 (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.