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. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schitz[edit]

Schitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Unreferenced, original research, evidently something made up one day; however, speedy deletion was contested by three different accounts (not necessarily three different people). This suggests that speedy deletion won't last very long, and that a full AfD is necessary to prevent recreation of this "article." R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm the one who tagged it for speedy, 'nough sad. oh yeah, and block the socks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete But I did laugh out loud when I saw that the intent was to pronounce this like "Skits" because its short for "schizophrenia". I figured it was pronounced like Schlitz beer, which sometimes had the side-effect of giving a person the... never mind. Mandsford (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. This article qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G3 - Hoax. It cites a book that, for all appearances, does not exist. It's vague, it's nebulous, and it isn't in any way notable. WP:MADEUP is also relevant. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Borderline G3. It's just plain WP:MADEUP. Violates WP:NEO. Fabricated reference, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete As a hoax. Warrah (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Book in question is not published yes, but it does exist, just as this philosophical concept exists. Who are we to claim a philosophy is a hoax or "made up". Technically isn't all philosophy "made up". You merely accept others because they are more well know and developed.. yet you wish to crush the formation of new thought before it may reach such a point?
In conclusion: The reference is not "fabricated" it just simply is not a published source. Nor were many philosophical writings at their beginnings... you think someone rushed out to publish Marx's manifesto? To delete an expression of philosophiocal thought is to condemn any inquiry outside of accepted norms.. and thus defeats the very purpose and nature of philosophy. Clearly you pro-deletetion advocates understand very little about the nature of philosophy and the importance of continued thought and inquiry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.209.137 (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not published comes under WP:OR or WP:CRYSTAL. Peridon (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article should absolutely not be deleted. It is not a hoax and it is not made up. It is a philosophical concept that man is not the measure of reality. It is no more real or fake than religion. Whether you agree with it or not or think it is stupid it does not violate any rules of this website. Saying that this is a hoax would be like saying that Judaism is hoax, or Buddhism is hoax, or any religion for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanboni27 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xanboni27 has made no other contributions to WikipediaXanboni27 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Agreeing with what the two prior to this have stated, schitz is not meant to be accepted as true by all, no philosophical concept is accepted by all, and no philosphical concept can be proven to be true or a hoax, so therfore your argument has no ground or standpoint that can be used to delete this. If you are going to argue that way about schitz, you might as well put up every religion or philosophical concept on wikipedia up for speedy deletion because they must all be hoaxes too seeing as they cannot be proven fact. To say that schitz is not real is equivalent to saying that there is no God, you cannot prove either side of the argument but you allow all opinions about it to be posted. If you disagree with this philosophy so much then why don't you simply create a page that shows the views of those who don't believe in it just as there are pages for montheistic and pagan religions on wikipedia already, they are conflicting views but who knows if they are hoaxes or not--Splitspades18 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC).--71.234.177.114 (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

71.234.177.114

71.234.177.114 has made no other contributions to Wikipedia

Keep: Not sure I understand it 100%, but it is really interesting and definitely worth reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrkvch113 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cbrkvch113 has made no other contributions to Wikipedia

It's always a good idea to sign your comments. All you have to do is type "~" four times (it's that key in the upper left hand corner, next to the "1" on the keyboard). As to 99.60 and 71.234, log in -- comments made by people who don't log in generally aren't taken seriously, because it's a common way to "vote" more than once. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the keystroke Shift-# on a UK keyboard..... Peridon (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Total rhubarb. And before any more of the flock of socks and IP addresses get going, this is not decided by head count (or even sock count divided by two). It's a discussion - not that there's a lot worth discussing. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP. Fails WP:V. likely a case of messrs Hatch and Bosco smoking too much "schitz". May the Schitz be with you.--ClubOranje^T 13:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!! Deleting this page would be discriminating against the beliefs of others and could cause trouble if they become offended. Even if some people don't understand this or think it's a hoax, others do believe it and want to spread the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.148.38 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite free to spread the word. Try aboutus, LinkedIn, MySpace and so on. Not Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Speedy G3, actually but we might as well wait for the closing, so we can do any repetition by G4, reinsertion of deleted material. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 31 January 2010 (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.