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. SNOW Tone 11:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taakatism[edit]

Taakatism (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)

Non-notable religion. I declined a WP:CSD#G3 speedy on this article and moved it into the Article Incubator for sources to be provided, explaining to the author what was required to meet WP:N. Seven weeks later, none have been added, but the author has moved it back to the mainspace. The only source cited is an article in religion.wikia.com, which is not a reliable source; moreover, that article was posted on the same day as this one, just ten minutes earlier. Searches find no indication that this is anything more than something made up one day; it fails WP:N and WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY nothing here to salvage, possible WP:HOAX RP459 (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can't find any information whatsover about this. Not-notable at best, more likely a hoax as RP459 mentions.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. I'd say it qualifies as G3. Also, another article Aladna by the same editor is also a hoax, just checked through five of the "refs" on that one, with no mention of this. Some sweeping or vacuuming is in order. -SpacemanSpiff 02:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No refs. Google only gives hits to mirrors. Could be a hoax. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. May not be a hoax, but could be a religion practiced only by the article creator. No sources. Salih (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - theology that's made up would our reputation corrupt. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an example of what obviously frustrated editors think of WP's credibility and spamming they can get away with here. I was genuinely amused by this article and give it 3 chuckles out of 5. Annette46 (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 04:08, 16 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.