Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truthism

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 of the debate was RESULT by community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truthism

Sometimes you come across pages like this and all that "respect" you had for D-grade philosophy majors vanishes in an instant. "Truthism" only put up 265 results on Google, and none of them appear to have anything to do with a staunch opposition to "falsism. Delete. JHMM13 07:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• And isnt wikipedia for getting undocumented events/beliefs on it, which seperates it from other static encyclopedias? Thanks for proving my point. Google isn't able to help you learn about this belief system, now wikipedia is able to. --Comment posted by 67.175.186.219 (Please put ~~~~ after your messages. JHMM13 07:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is not for allowing any person to post whatever he wants without any validity from the outside world. There are no publications to support the fact that "truthism" even exists except in your mind, and if you'd like to gain notoriety, don't do it through Wikipedia. We report on notoriety, we don't create it. That's what an encyclopedia does. JHMM13 07:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this getting deleted? There are two seperate people writing this who are experts on the subject. However insane the editors here find this article, we feel the same for many other topics on here. But isnt fairness of ideas allowed here? We believe in this so please do not delete it. --Comment posted by 67.175.186.219
• Speedy Delete with extreme prejudice as arrant nonsense. Spamming of discussion board by authors not appreciated.Herostratus 08:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• So one person who googles a word and can't find results who isn't able to properly research something they don't understand, decides if this stays or goes? There are a lot of subjects that do not have a web presence, do you exclude those too? Guess what, there is more to the world than google. I know you are surprised to hear that, but it is true.
• Speedy delete, utter nonsense. Squiddy 10:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ^^A communist who likes Nietzsche wants to call something else "nonsense?" LMAO
  • Lunacharsky, the 20s Soviet minister was a Nietzschean Marxist, and the distinctly anarchistic historian/philosopher Michel Foucault was strongly influenced by Nietzsche. Nietzschean socialists include G B Shaw and A R Orage. Feel free to re-attach your arse with whatever degree of sheepishness you think appropriate. Squiddy 11:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The article's main author states outright above that this is an "undocumented belief". That alone is enough to determine that this is unverifiable. The content and edit history of the article, where the tenets of this purported belief are altering in response to this very discussion, convinces me that this is a belief system that is being constructed on the fly by its author(s) directly in a Wikipedia article, that has gained zero traction outside of Wikipedia or indeed outside of its creator(s). It is thus original research. Delete. Uncle G 16:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Authors' comments here demonstrate it is original research. Peyna 17:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  [T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense. linas 19:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete if there isn't a category of "Delete for HUH?" maybe there should be. Mark K. Bilbo 23:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete the nonsense and don't let the page be recreated as has been threatened. Mark K. Bilbo 04:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  User:Just zis Guy, you know?. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Get over yourself. Followers of some religions and sects throughout history have been persecuted by being driven from their homes, forced into ghettoes, burnt alive, set upon by wild animals, and massacred by the thousands and millions: your "persecution" is having a substandard encyclopedia article deleted. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you are persecuting us? Sounds like you are a SICKIST. Read some real truth and get back to me. Id start with Metzger's science papers and then some of Merlin's FACTS. Then maybe you will stop the liarist personal attacks.

What part of my use of quotation marks/inverted commas around persecution escaped you? If you don't understand their purpose, I can recommend some good grammar books, and then you can get back to me. --Calton | Talk 15:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Delete. Nonsense. Logophile 13:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Be careful crossing the bridge. --
  Talk) 01:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Hm... interesting little comment you backed up and blanked. The one that goes "Go ahead and delete the article, punks. It'll be back up tomorrow." Maybe the page should be speedy deleted and prevented from being recreated. Mark K. Bilbo 04:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt write that. As I said, multiple people are involved in truthism. It is not a FAD, it is FACT!

I think you could change "sickism" to "sockism" and you'd find some people around here agreeing that it exists :-) -

[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• This is all, at the very least, extremely amusing. JHMM13 07:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ain't that the truth(ism)? Mark K. Bilbo

Now we have a wikipedia editor using the word (however incorrectly) therefore it should stay. BTW, google some real keywords like "magic crystals," "merlin," and "bunyanism" and youll see what Im talking about.

Now, now, don't drag a perfectly respectable field like bunyanism into this argument. JHMM13 07:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you, you're being ismist :-) -

[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:29, 1 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.