Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filianism

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. SarahStierch (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filianism[edit]

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

No sources in article showing meets WP:ORG and I can't find any. Sources are either the group or forums, etc. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it again lacks evidence it meets our criteria for inclusion.:

delete both I also see no sign of any external notice of this new religion (the website that seems to be the only true source only dates back to 2007 acto Internet Archive). No book hits or anything else that suggests anyone even believes this, much less that anyone else noticed it. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Filianic Faith is a small, minority Faith that began in the 1970's at Oxford, England. We have only been online for about four or five years.

We do have resources and three of the groups have a validly ordained clergy. Though we are fairly new, we are a growing movement. If we do not meet your criteria, we apologize. Rev. Pamela Lanides, the Order of the House of Kyria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.83.114 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The basic issue here is the lack of outside recognition— not of legitimacy, but that the movement exists and is described by outside sources. If the only real citable source is the religion's website, then it's impossible to write an article which meets minimal standards of objectivity; nor are our most minimal standards of notability met. If you can supply such sources then the article might be retained, but I must add that for instance local news stories saying that the group purchased property or held a festival would not be considered sufficiently strong. I would also like to thank you in advance for being understanding about these matters, it being a welcome change from the usual demands for inclusion. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, religions are by their very nature highly subjective. Does that mean Christian theologians cannot write about Christianity in Wikipedia? 184.76.8.41 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His is an irrelevant question. We do not have to rely upon Christian sources to verify the existence of Christianity. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, delete, delete, delete, delete There seems to be no incorporated church or religious organization associated with this anywhere, and aside from being a pure internet phenomenon there is no legitimate church/congregation/place of worship. Although Wikipedia isn't the Internal Revenue Service, it helps to use the IRS test here to measure the legitimacy of "Filianism." Do people exclusively identify as "Filyani" and practice the said religion in exclusion of others? Does a church of "Filianism" regularly meet for worship at a publicized location, open to public? If so I see no evidence of either criterion. Another relevant metric is the "sincerity test" used by the United States Bureau of Prisons. I looked through the linked websites, I simply fail to see them meet any level of sincerity. In fact they are such mish-mash of Catholicism, Neo-Paganism, Russian Orthodoxy, and Hinduism, they could as well be Universal Life Church or Unitarian Universalists (and I won't be surprised if the majority of "Filyani" are in fact members of UUA or hold "ordination" from ULC). 184.76.8.41 (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we identify (strongly) as being either Filianic or Deanic and we home-church. We are hoping to have our first on the ground parish by the spring. I had planned on doing so during the past year, but cancer prevented me. However, the House of Kyria is a religious ORDER and in being a religious ORDER, there is no need for formal incorporation at this time. Also important to note: our clergy are validly ordained PRIESTS not ministers. We meet the requirements for a recognized valid religion. We have a liturgy (not published on the internet), a creed, scriptures, a catechism, our own prayers, sacraments and so forth. We strongly support home worship or 'home-church' as we are spread across the country and in some cases, England and so having a home altar is most practical at this point in time. The IRS addresses the issue of sincerity here:http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicc80.pdf (scroll down). Btw, Wicca is a validly recognized religion and yet, there is no church building where worshipers meet. As far as being a 'mish-mash' is concerned, just about every religion out there, contains elements of religions which preceded them and that includes Christianity and most certainly, Wicca. We have nothing to do with Russian Orthodoxy or Neo-Paganism nor are we Catholic. Our Mythos actually precedes Christianity, but we use what we refer to as 'living stream images and devotions'. We are validly ordained through the Independent Bishop's Movement as priests(we are not ULC ministers) although Filianism is not a Christian religion. .

 There are other Divine Mother God movements both within Christianity and Judaism (Goddess Christianity, Goddess Judaism, Gnostic Christianity) and in the past, the little known Collyridians, but this is neither the place nor the time for such explanations.

All of this is besides the point, however. The issue here is not whether we are a valid religion, but the issue is one of notability. Inflammatory remarks against our Faith are certainly not necessary.

The person who took it upon himself to write our wiki article is actually not a member of our religion, but we were grateful for his efforts. Perhaps, it is simply too early in our movement for a wiki page at this time. Thank you for your time and in considering us. Our Church Council will respectfully accept your decision. 
 Rev. Pamela Lanides  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.83.114 (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member, and I believe it to the exclusion of all other religions. The Divine Mother is the only form of deity that I can conceive. I center my life round devotions to Her. David Kay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.252.246 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2013 (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.