The result was delete. 12:23, 5 July 2011 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Veritasism" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veritasism) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an unverifiable religion with no coverage in secondary sources. The proposed deletion was contested with the edit summary "Reason for deletion is insufficient, for sources back up the article and one can not deny the existence of a religion." However, the sources currently cited in the article do not mention a religion or Veritasism by name. Additionally, since the article was created by Veritasism (talk · contribs), I'm concerned that there may be an element of self-promotion (although not blatant advertising) and that a conflict of interest is present. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is indeed made by a name that is the same name of the religion, but with no intention of self promotion in any way. All views of this article are written from a neutral point of view (just as required by Wikipedia's guidelines), just as the Catholic people who contributed much of the Catholic Wikipedia page. The sources used did not mention the existence of Veritasism because Veritasism is not yet as large as many other religions. It is rather newly introduced to the world and is hoping to gain the same respect from the viewers of the page as the viewers of Judaism, Mormonism, Christianity and Islam get.-Veritasism (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All sources cited in the article support the beliefs of the religion do not acknowledge the religion's existence because it is not their purpose to. The purpose of the sources are to provide insight to the goals and beliefs of the religion. Also, as stated above, the religion is very new, however this does not provide any reason for the religion to be treated as anything less than what it is. -Veritasism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasism (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not in any way say that the religion does not exist, they are just on a different topic and do not mention any religion of any sort, for they are research articles/papers. As for the notability, I will say this. According to dictionary.com, a religion is: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. That is the guidelines of Veritasism, aside from the superhuman agency (which is clearly noted as not being accepted in Veritasism), and the followers of Veritasism follow these guidelines in the manner of any other organized religion. The followers alone verify the validity of the religion.-Veritasism (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few more aspects to my article. Veritism is the set of beliefs from which Veritasism stems from. I urge you to read the works of Alfred Globus and then reconsider your views on deleting this article.-Veritasism (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I know nothing else that can convince you the notability of Veritasism. I have presented you with proof of its existence and you outright objected to it. Alfred Globus writes about veritism and the set of beliefs that is uses, and Veritasism is almost literally veritism, but in an organized fashion. The system is believed to be written in the mid to late 1960s, so it is nothing new to the people who associate themselves with it.-Veritasism (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I, personally, have read much of Alfred R. Globus' works and he wrote an entire book on veritism. The religion, "Veritasism", whether is notable to the average reader or not, supports everything that Alfred Globus writes about. To my knowledge, this all seems to be not made up, Alfred Globus has been around for many years. -Fullinstinct (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Fullinstinct (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not Delete The argument that the article is not sufficiently referenced and unverifiable is irrelevant. There are many articles on wikipedia that don't have ANY sources to back them up. The sources in this article prove the basis of the religion. The source prove and show studies to back up the claims of the environmental effects on the human mind. Which was what the basis the article is about. I personally see no reason to delete that article. It is a new topic and one can not expect there to be others articles about this topic on the internet.-037adb (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— 037adb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Now I am sensing hostility from your part whereas this is supposed to be from a neutral standpoint. All ideas and religion were created at one time by an individual or groups of individuals. By saying it is a stupid or irrelevant is close-minded of one. A person with views of that sort shouldn't be deciding whether articles are deleted or not, for they have a biased opinion on the subject.-Veritasism (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE
I see this as a new growing religion, and it should be given a chance to prove to us that it can be notable, and be use to many people on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SteezyVegas (talk • contribs) 07:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— SteezyVegas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
If the sources don't verify the existence of the religion, but merely the overall concepts that the religion espouses, then it constitutes original research to collate those sources into proof of a religion whose existence can't otherwise be verified. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]