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 Speedy Delete. I have no doubt that I'm asking for an ass-kicking here, but this entire article reeks of self-promotional material if it actually exists, or a hoax if it doesn't (which... makes a lot of sense). There's absolutely no reason to let this farce of an AfD continue; a handful of people (possibly even one) are the ones campaigning for its continued existence, and the strongest piece of evidence (the scanned newspaper article) is one of the most heavily photoshopped images I've ever seen. Between suspect sockpuppets, a dubious level of notability, and an unreliable primary source, I don't feel that this article should be on Wikipedia. If this is a real religion (seems to be a bit of a debate about that, but that's neither here nor there), an article can be written at a later date at such a time as the movement is actually notable. That time is not now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janicism[edit]

Janicism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)).

Looks like pure original research and possibly something made up in a library. Also NN, "Janicism religion" garners 11 ghits. Speedied as nonsense, recreated, contested Tubezone 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janicism is a factual article. All things start off small, and Janicism wont expand suddenly overnight. The fact is, Janicism is a real religion. There are people who follow it, and therefore I maintain they have a right to have it documented on Wikipedia, which is why I wrote the article (which has since been expanded by a fellow practicing Janicist, showing it is not false.) I strongly believe that this article should be upheld in the public view.Mlc409 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — Mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete This is clearly a hoax. Google can find nothing at all to verify this. Not even a single blog, nothing. IrishGuy ^talk 10:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, speedy if possible. MER-C 10:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janicism is a real religion, but these things cannot simply turn up overnight. We have slowly been expanding our religion over many months, and have decided to write an article to try to reach out to more people. Janicism is definitely not made up, as some of its views are documented in books - see "Mort" by Terry Pratchett, as seen in the article. Do not delete. Ichbinbored 10:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — Ichbinbored (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, the article doesn't state that "Mort" documents this religion. When refering to books being written about people after their deaths: This is documented in the book "Mort", by Terry Pratchett, however the fundamental beliefs surrounding this are different to those of Janicists (who follow the Parable of Reed). All that means is that "Mort" mentioned the idea of people having books written about their life activities, it doesn't mean that "Mort" in any way referenced "Janicism". IrishGuy ^talk 10:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is real, i've heard about it before. 80.47.56.21 10:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.47.56.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The founder may be a budding L Ron Hubbard for all I know, but you have to have some verifiable outside notability to get into WP, please read WP:NOTE. There's plenty of other places on the internet to document your beliefs, and, no, you don't have a right to do it here. Delete (vote redone, see below) Tubezone 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You have articles on Christianity. You have articles on Islam. You have articles on Hinduism. I fail to see why an article on Janicism, a religion in it's own right is objectable. I do apologise if my comments come across as arrogant but I can't understand why some religions receive documentation on Wikipedia, but others do not? mlc409 10:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's real simple: those are notable religions by WP standards, Janicism isn't. Tubezone 10:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• dudes chill out janicism is real mannnn ive heard bout it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.105.204 (talk • contribs)

— 82.43.105.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: 82.43.105.204 is Mlc409 (talk · contribs), per [1]

• Delete. I agree, this is a hoax. Quite funny but shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Not a single ref to confirm this 'religion' exists. WJBscribe 10:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as any of the following: A non-notable religion, which may or may not attract coverage at some indeterminate point in the future, thus becoming notable; a hoax, although possibly one based on the works of a notable author; a group of Terry Pratchett fans trying to do for his works what the religion of the Jedi Knights has done for George Lucas (as distinct from a straight-out hoax). In the first and third cases, we've got the cart (a Wikipedia entry) before the horse (the inconvenient acquisition of notability). In the second case, we've just got a hoax. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janicism is slowly gaining popularity, and its beliefs can be seen in everyday life - just look around you. Now is it undocumented? I think not. Ichbinbored 10:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it shouldn't pose a problem for you to provide this documentation with verifiable sources. IrishGuy ^talk 10:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per num. utcursch | talk 11:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE There is proof. There are verifiable sources. I have found this link here [2]. I am also in the process of scanning a NEWSPAPER ARTICLE documenting janicism. Please be patient. mlc409

Blogspot != reliable source. MER-C 11:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially a blog that was created today with multiple entries all minutes apart to make it appear to be an older blog. IrishGuy ^talk 11:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and 1 newspaper article != notable... and why not tell us the name of the newspaper and its date of publication? That way someone can look it up. Tubezone 11:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A blog that was created today? ROFL. This "coordinated defence" is starting to become too silly. MER-C 12:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "source" blog is a complete hoax. It is made up of entries from three other blogs: http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/ [3] [4] [5], http://bluesandtwos.blogspot.com/ [6] [7], and http://jes.blogs.shellprompt.net/ [8]. The only original entry is your "source" on this hoax religion. Frankly, at this point you are guilty of plageurism for stealing other people's content and passing it off as someone else's in your attempt to create false sources. IrishGuy ^talk 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a blog entry about one of our festivals, its an example. So what if its not reliable, its a source. And someone set up a page ages ago here that was supposed to talk about the religion, but I think she gave it up a bit later. Ichbinbored 11:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That, too, is a hoax as it links to this article which didn't exist a month ago. IrishGuy ^talk 11:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By 'ages ago' you seem to mean less than a month ago?!? And it speculatively (and prophetically!) links to this very article on Wikipedia before it was created. Wow, make up your sources before you start this article- I'm impressed... WJBscribe 11:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the page, it says "An article about Our fundamental beliefs is being compiled, and should be completed towards the end of 2006." Being compiled means it is being made. It was posted today when we completed it. Obviously, so she wouldn't have to update the page later, she put a link there so it would be ready when it was completed. Ichbinbored 11:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if I write a webpage saying, "I am going to write an article about X and put it on Wikipedia", that blog is not external evidence of the existence of X when I come to justify the Wikipedia article. WJBscribe 11:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, but it surely must help. Ichbinbored 11:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way must it help? In order to show notability, you'll need reliable independent sources. Currently, the two sources cited are a blog with some funny entry timestamps and a website which says (as WJBscribe so aptly puts it), "I'm going to write an article about X and put it on Wikipedia". Leaving aside the blog, in what way is the website independent of the religion? That's the crux of the matter for me at the moment - when independent and reliable sources start talking about this religion, it becomes notable. It doesn't turn up here in order for independent and reliable sources to start talking about it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make your own sources nor can you act as a reliable source yourself. How hard is that to understand? We keep seeing these far out articles with people so desperate to keep their article they will do anything to make us believe that this isn't just something they made up in school one day. MartinDK 12:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above. MartinDK 12:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I intend to publish the scanned newspaper article shortly. Also,I'm in the process of uploading a Janicist book burning video on to youtube. This certainly is not a wind up, and it's slightly offensive that our beliefs are seemingly being belittled and ridiculed. mlc409 — user:mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Youtube != reliable source. Please read the guideline before trying to verify this article. MER-C 12:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a video? This should be fun! MartinDK 12:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So will the article no doubt be. Its amazing what some people can achieve with Photoshop! WJBscribe 12:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want a scanned article. Just tell us in which newspaper the article is in, and what date, there's ways to look it up. It'll take you a couple of seconds to add this info to the bottom of the article. Tubezone 20:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, mlc409 claims that he is going to put up a newspaper scan...then a newspaper scan does show up.[9] Unfortunately, it was Ichbinbored who put it up. Sockpuppetry? Second, I have contacted the editor of the newspaper and will shortly receive a reply to concretely clarify whether or not an article as this was ever published in the Oldham Evening Chronicle. IrishGuy ^talk 20:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what you would consider to be proof? Every source we find you manage to establish a way of making it illegitimate. Even if it's not. Annoying. If we didn't feel so strongly about our beliefs then we would probably give up as we feel very much ganged up against. The fact is this: JANICISM EXISTS. Regardless of how many people follow it. We follow it. We believe in it. Therefore it should be documented on Wikipedia. This is how I see it.mlc409 — user:mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The sort of proof we are looking for is explained at WP:RS. It might have been an idea if Ichbinbored (which is a poor attempt at translating 'I am bored' into German if further evidence of this user's intentions were needed) had read them before creating the article... PS. I worship my cat- can he have a page on Wikipedia? WJBscribe 12:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have better chances of making into Wikipedia for worshipping your cat than these kids. Tell me, what do you do in this video? MartinDK 12:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not, worshipping your cat is quite different from an article on a religion. I should clarify that the ichbinbored name is one used by the user generically. It really has no relevance to this discussion over the Janicism article. Discussing/attacking the character of the editor is not really acceptable. It is the suitability of the Janicism article for wikipedia in discussion here. mlc409 — user:mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No what is being discussed here is your home made sources and pathetic attempts at either canvassing or sockpuppetry. Now, back to the video. What do you do? Dance around Stonehenge in togas? MartinDK 13:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD (WP:HOAX). --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete They worship someone called "Janice" (surname probably "Reed"), they have sacred vegetables (including "Carrots, Aubergines, Apples [sic] and Pumpkins") and they believe that broccoli and sweetcorn are "satanic". All the blog entries, poorly photoshopped local newspaper articles and sockpuppet accounts in the world won't convince me this isn't a hoax. Demiurge 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Jesus, Buddha, and Adonai, delete this as rapidly as possible. I don't care if the religion actually exists or not, it's very obviously non-notable, and attempts by its "followers" to falsify sources (and non-relable sources, at that!) mean that the page should also probably be salted. -- Kicking222 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't matter how many people worship it, it matters how many reliable sources there are. 0 means Delete. Also: WP:CSD says hoaxes shouldn't be speeded. BCoates 13:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as WP:HOAX. Valrith 15:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is off the subject a bit, but I find it quite offensive that you can insult my name like this. Try searching for "ichbinbored" on Google and you will see that I receive 9 out of the 10 results on the first page. Ichbinbored is simply a slogan, it is in no way supposed to be a literal translation. NOT DELETE. Ichbinbored 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We are not here to debate your name. Second, could you explain to me why the blog you created is full of stuff from other blogs created before it? I am curious because Google seems to be defying your amazing line of logic. Third, what is the update on the video? MartinDK 16:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well if you read up a bit, WJBscribe said "Ichbinbored (which is a poor attempt at translating 'I am bored' into German if further evidence of this user's intentions were needed)", so it was not me who brought the subject up. Perhaps you could mention this to him/her. And I actually am bored by your constant abuse of our religion. It is recognised in the UK, and is soon gaining international status. DO NOT DELETE Ichbinbored 16:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this clearly goes against the beliefs of my religion, Floydism. And for those of you who may doubt this, I will be writing a blog entry, creating a youtube video, and then uploading a photoshopped news article as "proof." Wavy G 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A.S.A.P. - As per WP:HOAX. Also delete Image:Janicism article.jpg as per WP:HOAX too. --tgheretford (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete quickly per WP:HOAX. Creating content for an article is bad form. meshach 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt the name space. Non-notable hoax, supposed followers are not helping by making up sources that make it appear notable. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 19:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Do not delete'. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. 80.43.107.228 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.43.107.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Same editor also vandalized the AfD summary[reply]

Indeed everyone is entitled to an opinion. What matters here is the consensus of opinions to which everyone is entitled, which appears to be overwhelmingly against the article. If by "everybody is entitled to an opinion", you mean that everyone's allowed to write what they want on Wikipedia, well that's a different story - making up religions is something you can do in the privacy of your own home, but posting them on Wikipedia is bad and naughty. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. I can't find anything on Google except blogs and MySpace pages, which hardly confer notability. Hut 8.5 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I worship Snowball II, and Snowball says this article says this article should be speedily deleted as it's obvious this article will not have verifiable, reliable sources before this AfD is over. Tubezone 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there's not a chance in hell it'll be kept and the people behind it are disrupting wikipedia by altering votes [10] [11] and vandalising userpages. Let's not waste any more time on this. Demiurge 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The admins can call a halt to this per WP:SNOW. Note the anon IP's all come from England, where have we seen that before? Maybe here? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fosh (game) Tubezone 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball it please -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stick a fork in it, Salt, Ban one of the users as a sockpuppet (if not both)- only ghits for Janicism turn up some pseudo-pornographic Chinese blog: [12]. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If Janicism is real, Wikipedia can wait until some verifiable reliable sources are found before including it in the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 22:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete: this is actully really rather intersting to me, having read the artical, and read the discustion so far, I do not have any connections myself with Janicism, but you are asking for evidence of its existance, and you are expecting that a small manority religon (if it exists or not, I am not here to debate) will be able to come up with links from places like the bbc or something, but it isn't really going to happen is it? interstingly you have not found any infomation to prove that janicism does not exist, maybe you should try and do that, although I do understand that acording to wikipedia you don't have to, but it would be nice to see some evidence against it. also a while ago, i alerted an Admin about a poor quality artical and he E-mailed me back saying "as long as infomation is factul and is not biased, it is allowed on wikipedia" there can be no question that it is not biased, and as for whether or not it is factul, does remain to be seen, but wikipedia is meant to be a place to share infomation, and fit more infomation than you could on paper, so I say keep it, and spread the infomation about this religion, and its time for a lot of you to grow up, stop empowering yourselfs from your keyboard, and get off your high horses, and just accept it as infomation and move on. --GDMCR — GDMCR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).

How does one go about proving a negative? How do you prove something doesn't exist? Can you provide irrefutable evidence that I don't harbor an invisible elephant on my roof? IrishGuy ^talk 22:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has your roof fallen in for some unknown reason? No? Then there is no invisible elephant on your roof. Irrefutable proof. 80.47.11.236 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.47.11.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That is far from irrefutable proof. Much as this article is far from true. IrishGuy ^talk 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, isn't that the essence of faith? And isn't faith the basis of any religion? So, what you're saying is, we need to have faith in Janicism? Ahh, it all makes sense now. I "see the light." Wavy G 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We're glad to have you. However, perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with part of the rules, as per WP:V. As a matter of fact, several of us did do a google search, and were unable to come up with anything. Another rule is WP:NOTE, and (I'm sorry to say), in this case, WP:NFT. Just because something is made up by a small group of people does not make it notable enough for inclusion. If it had a following of even a thousand followers worldwide, it would probably be notable for inclusion. But as it stands, there's no sources for the information, and it looks fairly non-notable and unverifiable. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather hard to believe the above user's comments given that this post is the very first action s/he has ever taken on wikipedia...--Dmz5 23:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete mind-bogglingly stupid religioncruft. I also find it hilarious how the proponents are making a great case for deletion without any help from us. Danny Lilithborne 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• But Danny, what about the rule that Wikipedia publishes all information that exists, even information that isn't verifiable or notable? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I say gaze into the hypnotic power of my evil eye! Danny Lilithborne 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the reasons listed above (WP:RS and self promotion), although this article for deletion is the funniest I've ever seen.--aviper2k7 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How do I Delete thee? Let me count the ways: WP:NFT. WP:OR (this and this link back to Wikipedia!). WP:RS. WP:WEB. WP:HOAX. And finally...WP:BOLLOCKS. But hey, it was amusing, so that's something. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt as "pure bollocks." No reliable cites, some likely hoax cites. Edison 01:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think salting will do any good, they'll probably just make up another hoax (like, say Sir Charles Broccoli??) to disrupt Wikipedia, then use socks and vandalism to troll yet another AfD with silly arguments. An admin with checkuser privileges needs to check the edit history of the IP addresses of the contributors and lay some blocks on the sources of this and other joke articles. I do want to see the YouTube video, though, I wonder if they'll baptize a kid by whacking him on the noggin with an eggplant. (I don't want to see a Janicist bris) Also, how can they call a mushroom non-kosher for being "low", but a root vegetable is sacred? Tubezone 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I actually find it really abusive, and I think that others will do so too, that you are calling this religion "bollocks". Would you like to go on to the Islam and Christianity pages and tell them that their religion is "bollocks"? Even if Janicism is a minority religion, it still exists, and we should not have to put up with this level of abuse. 80.47.11.236 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.47.11.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • With respect, that's a false argument. Islam and Christianity (and a myriad of other religions, denominations, sects and cults) have attracted newspaper and/or scholarly coverage. Therefore, not only do we know that they exist, they're eminently notable. Janicism, on the other hand, has a dicey-looking blog, a website which says nothing more than "we exist", an apparently photoshopped newspaper article and an alleged YouTube video. The best that collection proves is that there is a relatively coherent group of people who call what they do by that name (and even then I have my doubts). There's no notability there, and there's precious little verifiability. If that were all we could find on an established world religion, I'd have no hesitation in deleting the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And also I thought there were no votes. It says at the top that the editors decide not through counting heads. So why are you saying that they have been changed if they don't mean anything? A religion doesn't have to be internationally recognised to exist. Ichbinbored ^talk 10:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as the international recognition point goes, that's true enough. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a website about everything which exists. To use the hoary old chestnut, I exist (and in a nicely verifiable manner), but I don't get an article just because of winning the genetic lottery. If I want an article, I need to do something significant first. Likewise, were I to found a Satanic cult (an example plucked at random, although there are a lot of AfDs on these), said cult would also exist but remain obstinately non-notable until it had burned a church or two down or done something equally newsworthy. I'm willing to assume good faith and say that the religion exists, but it hasn't achieved noteworthiness yet. In terms of the "changing votes" thing, what was being referred to then was that certain accounts had actually altered what other people had said - changing a phrase such as "Delete this page, it is as noteworthy as the religion I've founded" to read "Keep this page, it is related to the religion I've founded" and so on. Pretending that people have said things that they hadn't is very bad form. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those such accounts/IPs should be banned, but there is a newspaper article about one of the festivals. How large does such an event have to be before it is considered noteworthy? Ichbinbored ^talk 10:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would like there to be at least two newspaper articles to start with - regardless of the size of the festivals they're talking about. Further, there is a considerable belief that the article was created with Photoshop. IrishGuy was in the process of checking its bona fides last I heard, so it may ultimately prove unhelpful in this cause. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I can't afford Photoshop, and I don't think that Mlc409 could either. All I know is that he found that article in the Oldham Evening Chronicle, scanned it and uploaded it. Ichbinbored ^talk 11:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget which account you were logged into yesterday? Mlc409 didn't upload the article, you did. How does one forget scanning and uploading an article? IrishGuy ^talk 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't actually said it before, but regardless of that, we only have your word that neither of you could afford it. I'm not saying that it has been photoshopped, although other users are saying that. I've sent a message to IrishGuy to see if he's heard back from the Chronicle's editor, which would clinch the matter of the veracity of the newspaper article once and for all. It still remains to be seen, however, whether that's enough to move this into notable territory. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there seems to be no way of proving that we can't afford it, but Mlc409 usually tells the truth and so I'd be surprised if it was fake. Ichbinbored ^talk 11:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How can you possibly sit there and say, "Mlc409 usually tells the truth," when it is quite clear (you've already slipped up at least twice in this Afd when recalling which one of your accounts did what) that you are' Mlc409, automatically making him and yourself a liar? Wavy G 22:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affordability is a non-argument anyway. The term "Photoshopped" tends to get used as an umbrella term for all digital image manipulation, regardless of what software was actually used. There are plenty of cheap and even free image manipulation applications out there, and numerous other ways to achieve the same results. Saying "Photoshop is too expensive" doesn't eliminate any suspicion of fakery. 81.178.72.113 14:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)— 81.178.72.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Janicism is definately a real religion. Many of my friends have recently joined the religion and have tried to persuade me to join aswell but i am a strong christian so i declined their offers. 82.26.33.76 11:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 82.26.33.76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^^The above comment^^ was left on the actual article itself, so I cut + pasted it here. Ichbinbored ^talk 11:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee you that no photoshopped articles appear on the Janicism page. Mlc409 12:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee you this won't fly, either. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mlc409

How can you "guarantee" this? I can "guarantee" that mlc409 has as muchof a chance of becoming an admin as anybody else does. Do you call this an article that is not worthy of a nomination? Ichbinbored ^talk 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mlc409 didn't create the speedycuffs article...an editor named Mawich did. In fact, his only edits to that article were to revert vandalism by the same IP that keeps showing up here...ten minutes after it happened so it's pretty clear he wasn't simply patrolling the recent changes. How oddly convenient that he just knew to pop over to that article and find some vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 17:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a probable hoax, and almost as bad as Briefsism for being a hoax -ism. If Janicism is real, Wikipedia can wait until some verifiable reliable sources are found before including it here. But it's a probable WP:HOAX. --SunStar Net^talk 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How "reliable" does a source have to be before it can be counted? I bet that there are thousands of articles that don't quote sources, and they still exist. Ichbinbored ^talk 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Articles can and are deleted for want of references. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's probably been mentioned already, but the newspaper scan is a Photochop, the typeface is totally wrong for the Oldham Evening Chronicle (A Google Image search will show genuine articles and the typeface used). Unreliable sources per WP:EL and WP:V. Also I'm from the UK and I've certainly never heard of this religion, oh and it's not recognised by the British government. Could be an attempt to create something similar to the Jedi census phenomenon. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When will you people learn to READ??? PHOTOSHOP WAS NOT USED TO CREATE A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE. I can't think of a more simple way to put it. mlc409

Interesting. An IP which previously acted like a different person is signed as mlc409. There would no chance possibility of Sockpuppetry, would there? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mlc409 - I actually agree with you, looking at the quality of the image, the text and what not, I'd say your newspaper article was created using MS Paint. You still have not explained why your scan from the Oldham Evening Chronicle has a totally different typeface (Verdana if I'm not mistaken) to any other extract or scan on the internet. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous Patstuart. All this means is that I wasn't signed in at the time. My computer signs me out sometimes automatically. It happens, and it doesn't mean I am attempting to deceive people. What I WILL say though, is that I don't have a second username. So lets leave of the detective work and just discuss the actual article shall we? That's what this page is for mlc409 19:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not allowed to edit on someone else's account (friend's, brother's, imaginary friend's)++aviper2k7++ 20:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out - I already knew that, which is one of the reasons I haven't being engaging in such actions. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, SHALL WE CONCENTRATE ON DISCUSSING THE ARTICLE INSTEAD OF PERSONALLY ATTACKING ME?? Mlc409 20:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was informing you of Wikipedia policy, which is something you ignore when your article has one source, which is a poor quality scan of a newspaper article. It's not about whether the religion exists, it's if it's notable, and it obviously isn't. I think an article on myself has more notability than Janicism. Google turns no results that Janicism is a legit religion. This debate doesn't have legs.++aviper2k7++ 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what is Google? Is it the be all and end all of the WORLD? I know it's offensive for Wikipedia to have original content but I guess it happens Mlc409 21:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't happen, and that's why this page is being deleted.++aviper2k7++ 21:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched over 14 academic databases, and did not get a single hit. Keesiewonder 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously a hoax. --Das0408 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete apparent hoax, no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:40, 4 December 2006 (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.