Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gasm

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. — Aitias // discussion 13:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gasm

There's no indication that this meets WP:N. Has no references, and is not in Discordian primary sources. Appears to be a neologism and an extension of Operation Mindfuck, but doesn't seem to have any traction. Seems like it was made up recently. Firestorm ^Talk 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability and my be WP:MADEUP. Google search provided no valid results. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain It's kind of a Thing on principiadiscordia.com. It's borderline WP:MADEUP, and WP:N would be a big stretch, but it does seem to have some traction as a micro-subcultural movement. If there's anything reliable to cite on the topic, somebody should speak up. (And while you're at it, admit to how heavily the whole thing is inspired by Project Mayhem from Fight Club.) —chaos5023 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GASMs themselves are rather new. Wikipedia does not take new material? I know for a fact the Golden Apple Seed Missions are happening, as I had helped with ColbertGASM and am helping with LitGASM. I can add citations, though. Hail Eris! (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia does not take new things. In order for it to comply with our notability guidelines, it has to have gotten coverage in reliable third-party sources, like books, academic journals, newspapers, magazines, etc. As much as I love Eris, we already have quite enough chaos on the wiki as it is. Firestorm ^Talk 00:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is reliable? Because, this proves that really, nothing is. Does it simply need to be in a book? Because that is simple to arrange nowadays. You can even get a free ISBN! Lolikhan (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemological relativism may be true for you, but it isn't true for everyone. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or the external link version. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 18:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being "new", itself -- i.e. lack of age -- isn't the problem, the lack of sources is. But if anything at all can be sourced reliably I think that stuff should be better merged into the OM article. What can't be should be deleted, and if that means everything on here (ie. nothing suitable for merge), then that's what should be done. mike4ty4 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails N and V due to sourcing. Borderline G11, as importance and encyclopedic relevence isn't clearly asserted. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about G11, but it doesn't seem like its a company, so I don't think it fits. Firestorm ^Talk 21:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A minor meme, for which no reliable sources exist. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:20, 17 July 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.