Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Anti-Messianic Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Christian Anti-Messianic Church
This article is obviously a sarcastic hoax. Look at the author's contributions at Talk:Christianity if you aren't sure. Born2x 11:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seems relatively clear from the author's edits, especially this one, that either this is abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox to proselytize a newly invented religion or this is simple hoax vandalism aimed at disrupting the article on Christianity. Delete. Uncle G 12:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you do not wish for Us to Proselytize our One Sacred Truth on your Web Site, I will Respect your Choice to Sin. But that should not Prevent us from Writing a Factual Article on our One Sacred Truth. Esa29 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if we assume good faith, real religious group recently started, the group itself has not achieved any notability and appears to be unverifiable via any reliable sources. So, without prejudice to the article's author, delete. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 13:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't know for sure if the author has been serious or not this whole time, but I don't think that's necessarily the most important thing here, a google search turns up nothing on this supposed denomination that I can see, and if there's nothing to even confirm that the subject actually exists since there's no references, well....I don't see why this article should be kept. Homestarmy 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I, your Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Fryear, am Proof that we Exist. I, along with our Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Karcher, are currently the Only Knowers of our One Sacred Truth, for it has only been in the past Month that we have Learned that we are Permitted to spread our One Sacred Truth to Others. But that I am Here writing about our One Sacred Truth is Proof that we Exist. Esa29 14:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is, Wikipedia is trying to be a fairly reliable encyclopedia, and thusly has some standards about what can be in it in terms of reliable references. And part of those standards is that there have to be sources for articles that are notable for some degree, for instance, stuff like blogs or personal websites really aren't acceptable. Trying to reference oneself is even worse, unless you're like some super awesome notable professor of religiosity or something, and by the encyclopedic standards that I presume Wikipedia is going for, referencing oneself really isn't considered useful.... Homestarmy 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is obviously just a joke/sarcasm. The capitalizing of random letters is poking fun of how Christians capitalize He/Him/His/etc when referring to God. The self-referential proof that they exist is poking fun of Christians using the Bible as evidence for the historicity of Christ. There's no real point in humoring (bad pun intended) him. It's a bad joke/sarcasm/religious bigotry. --Born2x 15:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Its a dumb article. All "sincerity" issues aside, its a dumb article. Its 2 lines long, and is completely uninformative. It covers a movement that nobody has ever heard of. So please just Delete it. And Esa29, chill out dude. If you're serious, then keep your religion, but keep it off wikipedia.--Padawan3000 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can write More if you would like. Other Faiths are covered on Wiki Pedia; why should our One Sacred Truth not be as well? If you wish that I not Proselytize on your Web Site I will not, but why should there not be a Factual Article? 16:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because your church doesn't exist. It is poor satire. If you were writing about George Bush's long lost twin brother or some such nonsense, we wouldn't be having this discussion, your article would have been deleted by now. But religion is confusing enough to some people that they can't tell the difference between patent nonsense and something that someone somewhere might actually believe. Granted, with some of the cults out there, that line is pretty blurry ... but in the case of your article, it's just silly and an obvious hoax. --Born2x 20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you continue to Insist that our Brotherhood in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth is a Hoax and a Lie, and that we do not Exist? I am an Honest man of God. That I am Here spreading the One Sacred Truth is Proof that we Exist! Why must you Continue to Belittle and Insult us? Esa29 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or proof that you have too much time on your hands ... like every other vandal on Wikipedia. --Born2x 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you continue to Insist that our Brotherhood in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth is a Hoax and a Lie, and that we do not Exist? I am an Honest man of God. That I am Here spreading the One Sacred Truth is Proof that we Exist! Why must you Continue to Belittle and Insult us? Esa29 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because your church doesn't exist. It is poor satire. If you were writing about George Bush's long lost twin brother or some such nonsense, we wouldn't be having this discussion, your article would have been deleted by now. But religion is confusing enough to some people that they can't tell the difference between patent nonsense and something that someone somewhere might actually believe. Granted, with some of the cults out there, that line is pretty blurry ... but in the case of your article, it's just silly and an obvious hoax. --Born2x 20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete.Assuming that this is not persistant vandalism (if so -- quite the stick-to-it-ness on this one), it still does not pass the threshold of notability. -- Pastordavid 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No claims to notability. Get some citations and a bit more detail Esa and maybe you can manage a page. Without independent citations, this is clearly a WP:N issue, even if the church is real. Which I doubt... Callix
- Delete. Sarcasm and soapboxey, but not really notable. Nothing much turned up. One person existing and saying that it exists doesn't mean that it's notable. Sorry. --Dennisthe2 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)`
- Redo this in about one week time, then delete it' April first is next week. George Leung 22:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. A joke, and not a very good one. Realkyhick 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why does Everyone insist that I am a Hoaxer and a Liar? If our Church does not meet your Criteria to be worthy of an Article, then so be it. But why must you be so Unkind as to think that I am merely Perpetrating a Joke? Why must you be so Offensive and Insulting? Is this typical Behavior on the Wiki Pedia? Esa29 23:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, let's see. A google search turns up four links - three here on Wikipedia, and a forum. That's not only a lack of proof of notability, that's lack of proof that it exists. That you exist does not constitute that this group exists - and even if you have created it, maybe it does, but it still is nowhere even remotely near notable. Let's then discount the fact that it reads like a usenet post on alt.christnet.*, and also discount the inherent sarcasm. And let's also completely and utterly ignore the fact that you seem to think that existence alone connotes a qualifier to be included on Wikipedia. If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale for you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
- ...aw, buggers, forgot to sign. --Dennisthe2 23:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I no longer object to the Deletion of the Article; I understand the Arguments for it, and though I am not Convinced I understand it is Pointless to try to change things. But why must everyone Insult me? I have done no wrong here. Why does promoting and sharing the One Sacred Truth make me an object for Ridicule and for false Accusations of being a Liar and perpetrating a Hoax? Esa29 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The only reason you are insulted is because you choose to be. Nothing more, nothing less. --Dennisthe2 19:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, let's see. A google search turns up four links - three here on Wikipedia, and a forum. That's not only a lack of proof of notability, that's lack of proof that it exists. That you exist does not constitute that this group exists - and even if you have created it, maybe it does, but it still is nowhere even remotely near notable. Let's then discount the fact that it reads like a usenet post on alt.christnet.*, and also discount the inherent sarcasm. And let's also completely and utterly ignore the fact that you seem to think that existence alone connotes a qualifier to be included on Wikipedia. If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale for you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
- Comment If I may bring something to everyone's attention, from Dennis's google search, that particular forum post in the thread which is relevant to the search term reads as follows:
- "I once, as a joke, created the Christian Anti-Messianic church--for followers of Christ who reject the notion that he was the Messiah.
- It was a satire of Messianic Judaism.
- __________________
- Kurt Weber".
- Something smells rotten in Denmark. Homestarmy 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can you provide a direct link to it? I don't see the forum when I do the Google search. (Maybe Google restricts your results based on your geographic location or something.) --Born2x 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was the fourth and only non-Wiki result, from the NationStates forums:[1] Homestarmy 23:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can you provide a direct link to it? I don't see the forum when I do the Google search. (Maybe Google restricts your results based on your geographic location or something.) --Born2x 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Everyone be nice please. Comment on the content, not the contributor. -Cquan, talk, AMA Desk 23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that Esa definently is related to the person who posted that forum post, i'm just trying to point out, its the only easily accessable evidence available as far as I can tell that this concept exists, and it certainly doesn't look good. Homestarmy 23:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, Kurt Weber is one of the two Individuals that our Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Karcher was Commanded to Spread the One Sacred Truth to when it was Revealed to him as part of the Book of Fortitude, but he Rejected it and chose to Ridicule us instead. Esa29 23:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that Esa definently is related to the person who posted that forum post, i'm just trying to point out, its the only easily accessable evidence available as far as I can tell that this concept exists, and it certainly doesn't look good. Homestarmy 23:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I will strongly support an article on even a very small splinter religious group or sect--provided there is evidence it exists outside the pages of WP. If by any chance an actual congregation can be demonstrated, I think the articles should remain. I'm not going to determine the Truth, but there has to be some evidence that other people Believe. DGG 04:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
