354:. There is independent evidence of serious notability through the five academic references provided. It's ranked mid-importance on wikiproject religion and high importance by NRM workgroup. There is no COI on the article except in things relating to the inclusion of individual churches. (which I am against, just trying to 'copy' other religion-related GA wikipedia articles) The major issue with this article is the lack of detailed academic secondary sources.
390:. COI? Are you for real? So Christians shouldn't edit article about Christianity? Jews can't edit Judaism? Wow. Hell, let's take is a step futher. Americans can't edit articles about the US and no citizen of the UK should be allowed to edit anything regarding the Queen. It's a legitimate religion. It become notable, if for no other reason because it has been noted in the media regarding its impact on census'.
406:
Merely meant to indicate that that the COI combined with OR makes most of the article suspect as notability wise. there seems to be no academic notability even by Melton's
Encyclopedia which covers so many fringe groups it seems to be threshold for notability by NRM Workgroup. Existence does not
231:
i am inclined to beleive it is two members with COI trying to beef up scant resources to build a flimsy article. This article need such drastic rewriting it is even funny, the "in the media" and in politics section looked more like SW trivia questions than actual segments of encyclopedia thus i
469:
450:
232:
nominated it for deletion. I repeal my "delete", there seems to be enough evidence that the movement his significant enough, Clearly some books cover it i was unaware i highly encourage those who seem to have spent such substantial time editing to use those sources.
682:
201:
no independent evidence of serious notability everything relies on original research. Both major editors responsible for most of the article admit COI giving increased wight on OR making bulk of the article. If anthing this should be a section of
329:
should be merged into THIS article instead. If you put your 'religion' down as "jedi", then you are ostensibly a 'jediist' even if you are doing so in jest, as you are officially declaring it. The phenomenon is intrinsically linked to this
489:
585:
by Peter
Bernard Clarke, Professor Emeritus of the History and Sociology of Religion at King's College and tutor in the Sociology of Religion at the University of Oxford. There is an entire research paper on this subject
509:
269:
that was my initial thought as well however i was unable to find any sources that were actually decent and i just ripped the sources that
Classify it as NRM do not say anything of the sort. "jediism" itself seems to
294:
as not independently notable (since it is based upon someone else's intellectual property). Fans worshipping Lucas' ideas cannot, however, hijack those ideas as their own unless he proclaims himself leader of this
166:
227:
It is shocking to me however that if are all these good sources why i had to why the article is so poorly sourced. typically in my experience if an article is poorly sourced with things like
580:
574:
571:
568:
121:
676:
672:
645:. A book written by an academic, that's partially avilable online and actually confirms the information it references is a good source. There's no better ref than that.
160:
319:
Ideas are not subject to copyright. The word "Jedi" itself is a trademark for Star Wars related things such as books and figurines. Religion isn't on the list.
563:
Jediism is a real and influential thing with enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Described as a "heper-real religion" (along with
579:
by
Christopher Deacy (religious studies researcher, expert in religious motifs in film) and Elisabeth Arweck (expert on new religious movements), and
427:" doesn't really make people think of what you just explained, does it? No, existence doesn't confer notability. I didn't mean to imply that it did.
550:
679:
126:
56:
17:
228:
608:
The nom has an apparent COI and deleted a good ref in an attempt to support his views. Apparently this isn't his first time.
712:
36:
595:
545:
181:
94:
89:
148:
98:
206:
not its own article. Substantial time has been given to improve this article and yet RS are nearly nonexistent.
711:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
81:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
54:
591:
538:
376:
326:
258:
203:
142:
651:
614:
515:
495:
475:
456:
432:
395:
360:
588:
From Jesus Christ to Jedi Knight – validity and viability of new religious movements in late modernity
629:
408:
271:
233:
207:
138:
633:
412:
275:
237:
211:
174:
697:
656:
637:
619:
599:
553:
519:
499:
479:
460:
436:
416:
399:
380:
365:
343:
308:
279:
262:
241:
215:
63:
691:
49:
488:" is of course devited to the idea, and also verifies that Canada has recognized the religion.
188:
372:
337:
302:
254:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
447:
New
Religious Movement in Global Perspective; a Study of Religious Change in the Modern World
646:
609:
511:
491:
471:
452:
428:
391:
355:
590:. The nom should check the sources in google before making nomination like this again. --
371:
If
Jediism is a high importance new religious movement I'd hate to see a mid or low one.
686:
154:
333:
298:
85:
115:
587:
564:
291:
449:" does cover the religion, and cites several other studies in it's recap.
77:
69:
573:. As noted by Niteshift36, Jediism is analyzed in detail in the books
628:
deleting poor Ref that do not meet RS is not a an illgeitmate act
468:
doesn't seem to have a high opinion of it, but they do cover it.
253:
Article is bad, yes. But
Jediism is real. Improve, don't delete.
705:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
684:. There simply is significant coverage in scholarly sources. --
570:, it has 70000 followers in Australia and 390,000 in the UK
111:
107:
103:
173:
486:
Jedi Manual Basic - Introduction to Jedi
Knighthood
187:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
715:). No further edits should be made to this page.
576:Exploring Religion and the Sacred in a Media Age
466:Exploring Religion and the Sacred in a Media Age
506:Sociology of Religion for Generations X and Y
8:
675:is good and strong. Other good references:
535:per Steve Dufuor, Ren, and Niteshift36. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
582:New Religions in Global Perspective
24:
1:
698:22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
657:20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
638:16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
620:07:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
600:03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
554:01:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
520:23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
500:23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
480:23:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
461:23:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
437:23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
417:23:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
400:22:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
381:22:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
366:22:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
344:13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
309:21:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
280:22:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
263:21:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
242:02:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
216:20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
64:02:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
48:, no other delete votes. --
732:
708:Please do not modify it.
325:Actually, it seems like
32:Please do not modify it.
407:constitute notability.
327:Jedi census phenomenon
204:Jedi census phenomenon
661:please be specific
508:" also covers it.
46:Nominator withdrew
671:The reference in
592:Defender of torch
341:
306:
723:
710:
694:
689:
654:
649:
617:
612:
548:
541:
363:
358:
332:
297:
192:
191:
177:
129:
119:
101:
59:The bird's seeds
52:
44:The result was
34:
731:
730:
726:
725:
724:
722:
721:
720:
719:
713:deletion review
706:
692:
687:
652:
647:
615:
610:
546:
539:
361:
356:
342:
307:
134:
125:
92:
76:
73:
61:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
729:
727:
718:
717:
701:
700:
665:
664:
663:
662:
640:
603:
602:
557:
556:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
502:
482:
463:
440:
439:
403:
402:
384:
383:
349:
348:
347:
346:
331:
313:
312:
296:
283:
282:
266:
265:
247:
246:
245:
244:
199:Strong Delete'
195:
194:
131:
127:AfD statistics
72:
67:
57:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
728:
716:
714:
709:
703:
702:
699:
696:
695:
690:
683:
680:
677:
674:
670:
667:
666:
660:
659:
658:
655:
650:
644:
641:
639:
635:
631:
627:
624:
623:
622:
621:
618:
613:
607:
601:
597:
593:
589:
584:
583:
578:
577:
572:
569:
566:
562:
559:
558:
555:
552:
549:
544:
543:
542:
534:
531:
530:
521:
517:
513:
510:
507:
503:
501:
497:
493:
490:
487:
483:
481:
477:
473:
470:
467:
464:
462:
458:
454:
451:
448:
444:
443:
442:
441:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
414:
410:
405:
404:
401:
397:
393:
389:
386:
385:
382:
378:
374:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
359:
353:
345:
339:
335:
328:
324:
321:
320:
318:
315:
314:
311:
310:
304:
300:
295:"movement".--
293:
289:
285:
284:
281:
277:
273:
268:
267:
264:
260:
256:
252:
249:
248:
243:
239:
235:
230:
226:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
60:
55:
53:
51:Thejadefalcon
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
707:
704:
685:
668:
642:
625:
605:
604:
581:
575:
560:
537:
536:
532:
505:
485:
465:
446:
424:
387:
373:Steve Dufour
351:
350:
322:
316:
287:
286:
255:Steve Dufour
250:
224:
198:
197:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
58:
45:
43:
31:
28:
669:Speedy Keep
512:Niteshift36
492:Niteshift36
472:Niteshift36
453:Niteshift36
429:Niteshift36
392:Niteshift36
161:free images
330:article.--
270:neologism.
630:Weaponbb7
565:Matrixism
547:Mikemoral
425:Admit COI
409:Weaponbb7
292:Star Wars
272:Weaponbb7
234:Weaponbb7
208:Weaponbb7
122:View log
643:comment
606:Comment
540:The New
334:ZXCVBNM
323:Comment
317:Comment
299:ZXCVBNM
167:WP refs
155:scholar
95:protect
90:history
78:Jediism
70:Jediism
673:Clarke
139:Google
99:delete
626:reply
288:Merge
182:JSTOR
143:books
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
634:talk
596:talk
561:Keep
533:Keep
516:talk
496:talk
476:talk
457:talk
433:talk
413:talk
396:talk
388:Keep
377:talk
352:Keep
338:TALK
303:TALK
276:talk
259:talk
251:Keep
238:talk
229:this
225:keep
212:talk
175:FENS
149:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
693:466
648:Ren
611:Ren
357:Ren
290:To
189:TWL
124:•
120:– (
688:JN
681:,
678:,
636:)
598:)
567:)
551:♪♫
518:)
498:)
478:)
459:)
435:)
415:)
398:)
379:)
278:)
261:)
240:)
214:)
169:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
653:✉
632:(
616:✉
594:(
514:(
504:"
494:(
484:"
474:(
455:(
445:"
431:(
423:"
411:(
394:(
375:(
362:✉
340:)
336:(
305:)
301:(
274:(
257:(
236:(
210:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.