Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turas faith

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. Utter absence of any sort of evidence and author request to delete (see below). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turas faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

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}}.

Non-notable movement. No applicable Google hits for "Turas faith", "Turasism", or "Venerable Turas". —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am working to bring this article up to scratch, and would welcome and appreciate anyone else's help in doing so. Edward1967 (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concern isn't whether the article is up to scratch but whether the topic is notable or even verifiable. There must be third-party reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By bringing it up to scratch, I meant (among other things) getting hold of some 3rd party sources! Edward1967 (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Edward1967, sources should have been found before you created the article for the third time. tedder (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect - To Turanism. The above article is just alternate spelling of Turanism. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • What? No. It has nothing to do with Turanism. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I am sorry if I misread the article and philosophy, and misinterpreted the timelines and inception of both the individual and the real conception of Turanism, but all three lined-up and I assumed just a possible mis-spelling. If I am wrong – delete…if not redirect. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Where I live this is certainly a notable group. While I find them somewhat mysterious and weird and don't know much about them, they are always about and handing out soup and books to the homeless as well as trying to sell their books. They ARE notable. Nebulousnotions (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC) — Nebulousnotions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Sorry, but Wikipedia's criteria for establishing notability don't include your own personal knowledge! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep they are big in the UK, i guess you lot are all in the US? 95.211.8.133 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This IP has been blocked as an open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google is international, so I'm skeptical that they're "big" in the UK if Google has no indication that they exist. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to their website, they have 2 centres in London, and centres in Basingstoke, Kettering, Manchester and Glasgow. Seems pretty big to me. Nebulousnotions (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • People can write websites that say anything they want. That's why Wikipedia has criteria for assessing notability, with particular criteria for groups. Note that self-proclaimed bigness isn't a criterion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep the Turas faith is perfectly legitimate thank you very much and i take offence at u saying there is 'no indication they exist'!!!!!! i thought we had freedom of religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.94.228.2 (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This IP has also been blocked as an open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First, there's no relation to Turanism that I can see. Second, I cannot find a single reliable source that discusses this. Google / google news are pulling up blanks. Without multiple, independent reliable sources to back things up, we can't have verifiability. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also, delete Venerable Turas which redirects to Turas faith --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a problem, should the article be deleted. Redirects to a non-existent page are deleted as a matter of course. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Venerable Turas had a speedy tag that I put and the creater of the article removed it by redirect and the bot didn't put it back so I did. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, hoax. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am sorry, when I first looked at the article and did some quick research I saw that the comparisons with Turanism were within a reasonable expectation that the new editor here on Wikipedia just made a small spelling mistake. After further research, pointed out by —Largo Plazo , I see that they are two different and distinct religions, but extremely close in philosophy. In that light, when I could not find any mentions’ of the organization in Google News - Google Books or Google Scholar, have to go with Delete. Thanks.ShoesssS ^Talk 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though this is now off-topic for this article, I can't help noting that Turanism isn't a religion at all, while you continue to refer to it as one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a small differences between political movements and religion. In fact, most individuals have blurred the line (or some think, have erased the line) between the two. Just ask Jew's - Christian's or Muslim's with concern to the Middle East. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a hoax. I find nothing when I google it.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This should also include Venerable Turas, which I just changed to a redirect to the article in question. — Sebastian 08:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep why is anyone who says anything positive about the Turas faith blocked? sounds like religious bigotry to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.175.4 (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This IP has also been blocked as an open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree. Unfortunately it seems as if this so-called debate has already been decided by the in-clique here at Wikipedia and this is merely a show trial. Can't we please have a proper debate without all this blocking and other dirty tricks to bias the outcome? Edward1967 (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For your information: It is extremely rare for IP users to contribute to deletion discussions at all. It is also extremely rare for people who have otherwise never made any edits on Wikipedia to suddenly contribute to an administrative procedure. Therefore, the fact that there is suddenly an influx, in this discussion, of IP users
      1. all operating from IP addresses from which Wikipedia contributions haven't come before,
      2. all operating from open proxies,
      3. all having the same opinion on this matter (which is the opposite of the stance taken by every registered user who has contributed besides yourself [the author] and Nebulousnotions who, while a registered user, is also a single-purpose account who has never edited anything else on Wikipedia),
      4. all ignoring the reason given for the deletion nomination,
      5. and all focusing instead on a supposition of religious persecution,

makes it look like they might be contrived. I'd like to suggest that you read about sock puppetry, a behavior which is taken seriously on Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Why are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet? I have done nothing wrong! If you are so convinced with your silly accusations, get some real proof. When one of the people you are targeting turns out to be a registered user, you accuse them of being a single purpose account? Come on, it's pretty obvious you are looking for any excuse to shut down debate. What are you hiding from? I suggest you read WP:attack and WP:NPOV, both of which you are currently flouting. Anyone would think you are trying to discourage new editors. Then again, maybe you are, so your clique can keep trolling Wikipedia in this manner? I thought Wikipedia was the encyclopaedia for anyone to edit? If so, why are you shuting down debate in this way? Like I said, it looks to anyone who sees it like a show trial! (UTC)Edward1967 (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did I accuse you of anything? I was talking about the IP users who were blocked and explaining, in a perfectly objective manner, the reason why their behavior was suspicious. Why are you so defensive? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You just claimed I was a sockpuppet, did you not? Edward1967 (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I did not. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • As far as your accusation of attempting to shut down debate is concerned, a debate consists of one person addressing the issues raised by the other. The primary issue raised here involved the article not meeting Wikipedia's standards for WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Not a single one of the respondents so far who is been in favor of keeping the article has addressed these points, instead making comments that do nothing to remedy the cited problems. This is not debate; there has been no debate to shut down. Meanwhile, if the allegations are wrong—if you can provide qualifying references to verify the existence of the Turas faith as well as establishing its notability—then it would be much more valuable for you to spend your time on doing that than on complaining that there are rules and implying that they are being applied out of ulterior motives rather than because that's routine maintenance around here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't been prepared till now to dub it a hoax, but I noticed that on the website it says that the Book of Turas is "available in bookshops and online". Yet the site doesn't contain a link to the supposedly online book! And of course there are no Google hits for "book of turas". Also, I noticed that the site doesn't provide contact or ___location information for the supposed organization's supposed branches, which is kind of strange considering that listing them would normally be for the purpose of giving local people a way to connect with them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assure you this is not a hoax or anything of the sort, but I agree the TFI's website design leaves a bit to be desired! I have now copied the content of the article to my userspace, and I will continue working on it from there until it is up to scratch to re-create the article. In the mean time, go ahead and delete it. Fair compromise? Edward1967 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm terribly curious: how can anything you do to the article cause the requisite but currently nonexistent reliable source references to the article's topic to suddenly manifest themselves? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will do some research and find sources, that's all. Edward1967 (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was amused to see that the server for the Turas website is probably within a few feet of the server for RHaworth.com. Also since my website is on Box16 and yours is on Box17, it is a good bet that your website was only created in 2009. So "not (yet) notable" is another deletion reason. But please pass my details to the secretary of your Lewisham branch and if actual human-to-human contact is established, I might revise my opinion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:06, 2 October 2009 (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.