Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination)

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 and salt. Overwhelming, stable consensus among established Wikipedia editors. People who want to continue campaigning for this article are warned to knock it off. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality

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

This is actually the 3rd AFD nomination for an article on this subject; it was previously discussed twice in 2005, and deleted both times (first AFD, second AFD. It was also discussed at Deletion Review in 2006, where it was decided to keep it deleted [1]. This version of the article was created in 2008, and is sufficiently different to the previous versions that it's not eligible for speedy deletion, but I believe the notability issues still have not been resolved.

There is virtually no mention of this organisation in reliable sources; the only one I can find is the Oakland Tribune article here [2]. All other mentions appear to be in blogs and other non-reliable sources. If further references in reliable sources cannot be found, this organisation should be considered non-notable and the article (once again) deleted. Robofish (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. It's not entirely fair to say this was discussed twice in 2005. It was brought to AfD twice, and the second time it was speedy closed (by me) as CSD A4. I think I made the right call there, but it's not quite cricket to hold that up as a second example of consensus being reached. Also, for those of you who want to go dig through the history, note that this article has appeared under two different spellings (with the "r" in "reality" either upper or lower case). It's pretty confusing until you discover that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Longer, but no better. No evidence of notability. This time, salt. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see how they are notable. Just because the IRS allow them to be a non-profit doesn't make them notable enough for Wikipedia, in my view. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Real but little evidence that it is notable. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt; I noted at the Drv that this has wasted enough time; now even more so. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then salt. Not covered by reliable independent sources in the depth required.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to keep up with the socks/spas but just gave up (probably stupid to try). It's a pretty impressive display of that sort of game.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the website in questions splash page [3]. "The online encyclopedia Wikipedia is deciding to delete articles about the Church of Reality from it's database. you can participate by voting to keep it here. We would appreciate it if you would contact Wikipedia and let them know you don't like censorship. Jimmy Wales email address is (redacted -- not that it's really a problem, but...)."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and at the next sign of appearance of this article re-delete promptly and id the ip number.This article is obviously not notable, its backed up by some website. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass "keep" !votes from new editors, obvious external campaign

Keep Delete this, delete all other fairy tales sites too, christian junk, muslim junk, hindu, wicca, anything dealing with religion of anysort cannot be allowed. Selective censorship is wrong, all or none.

Keep I can't believe there is so much hate in the world that I can't even believe in my own religion freely because it is not famous enough or more likely...does not have enough monetary value. You people make me sick. If one LEGITIMATE religion is deleted then out of fairness should we not delete them all? May I suggest after deleting this we delete Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from Wikipedia and see if there is a problem then? I think all religions should be mentioned. If that's not how it works when are we going to be allowed to vote the Jews off Wikipedia? I didn't think so. Removing any religion should be a hate crime. --Darkrom (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Darkrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Remove because it is not popular? What a ridiculous reason. Cosmic Ray76 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Cosmic Ray76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep All these "men" came before Jesus and have similar stories as Jesus: Buddha, Krishna, Odysseus, Romulus, Zoroaster, Attis of Phrygia and Horus. So every reference to them must be deleted along with any reference to Jesus if article from the Church of Reality are taken out because of religious bigots. Why should Christians be able to keep their myths on Wikipdedia and not the others? They have no more proof of their "gods" than Muslim, Jews or any of the war-inducing religions we have now.Digitalpug (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalpug (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Digitalpug (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Keep" so, in a few months when it is proven beyond doubt that jesus is a composite character created in the fourth century by Eusebius and Constantine in order to keep the population stupid, in fear, and docile (until they're needed to kill non-believers)--you're going to delete Christiatnity too??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsect (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Dsect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment Wikipedia is about knowledge - not 'worthy' knowledge. So if no one likes Hitler, delete him? If it is not like or dislike, is it important? Cabbage page kids seem pretty unimportant... It is clearly about offensiveness - Faith is belief in something DESPITE the evidence against it, and seeing something that brings even the slightest possibility of someone perhaps possibly realizing that the world might not be flat after all... Now that must be removed quick fast and in a hurry. What, running out of hard drive space? Gotta clean up the database? Grow up and except that not every one believes in the tooth fairy!! If you leave it no one will care except some religious fanatics who can never be pleased anyway. What is next? Document the possibility that evolution might not be true even though the entire scientific community accepts it, And there is so much evidence for it it is ridiculous to challenge it with stories of magical spontaneous life? How about that grand canyon crap and how bush removed any mention of how long it took to form because the freaks who think the world is only 6k years old might get offended? The dark ages call you, but do not take us there with you.

Comment No-one is saying you can't or shouldn't believe in it. What is being said is that it may well not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. You will not win your case here by ranting, by claiming other articles should not exist because yours is threatened, or by otherwise ignoring the rules and guidelines here. Just because Wikipedia is open to editing doesn't mean that ANY edit is acceptable. It's our ball, it's our field - it's also our rules. Read the notability guides. You need reliable independent outside sources to establish this notability. Not self-published, not blogs, not forums, not press statements, not your own site. The Oakland Tribune ref looks the sort of thing - but more is needed. Reliable sourcing for the IRS decision might help - as I'm in the UK I don't know how widely they give this recognition to 'religions'. Please note: I'm not attacking you - I'm trying to help you. It's up to YOU to show notability by OUR standards. We don't have to do it for you, and if you don't or can't, well, tough. Peridon (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment - People can vote how they choose. It seems that some people here define "reliable sources" as being in print media like the Oakland Tribune. I would remind people that this is the 21st century and that Wikipedia itself is a web based medium. Deletionists have their set of standards as to what should be deleted and we have ours. People should not be discouraged from voting to keep just because a deletionist tells them how to vote. The Church of Reality invented the term Reality-based community and we own the trademark on the word Reality.--Marcperkel (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a trademark in the USA for the word in connection with religious and counselling matters. (I'm in the UK and we already have a Reality Group Ltd who deliver things.) I say again, it's our ball. Read the guidelines and come up with the goods. Or, start your own encyclopaedia. Don't class me with deletionists or inclusionists. I'm trying to get the true picture - and to help you to keep your article. If you don't like being offered help, that's up to you. Peridon (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to new visitors Please sign your posts with four ~ s. This is not a vote based on numbers. It is a discussion based on reasoned argument, and in particular on references - or the lack of them. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or free web space. Also, if Christianity is shown to be a hoax the article will stay with the new information added. It has plenty of notability whether a hoax or not. Notable hoaxes do have articles. Peridon (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True - the decision to delete the article has already been made like it was the last time. This is just a way to create the illusion that there's some kind of due process so as to justify a decision that has already been made. Your input doesn't really count.--Marcperkel (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My input has counted on more than one occasion where an article has survived against the initial odds. If you think we are a cabal of robed and hooded assassins who secretly discuss and decide these matters, then I'm afraid we're entering the realms of conspiracy theory. I for one am part of no group of conspirators, and on more than one occasion have changed my initial !vote. I haven't !voted here yet. Peridon (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a growing religion and in ten years you guys will have missed the boat on a growing movement to look at reality, not 2000 year old writings. 98.222.51.81 (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— 98.222.51.81 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JTHartke[reply]
KEEP the Church of reality! It is a viable alternative to the spoon fed dogma that is pervasive in many religions! Frederickus (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)F.Kann— Frederickus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
References, references, references! Sorry, folks, but your personal opinions may be sincerely held (and may even be correct), but they are not encyclopaedic evidence. Peridon (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. I appreciate the thoroughness of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.40.196 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI am unclear on what encyclopaedic evidence entails. Does that mean empirical scientific evidence? If so, how can a talking snake religion be encyclopaedic evidence more than Reality. Keep this religion on Wiki so that others may know the power of Reality. http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/content/blogsection/72/101/ Cbgb2112 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Cbgb2112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Read the notability guides. You need reliable independent outside sources to establish this notability. Not self-published, not blogs, not forums, not press statements, not your own site." Quoted from me above. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Peridon (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Google Hits on Church of Reality in general are about 13,000. Does 13k Google hits make you notable? Google hits on "Church of Reality" and Wikipedia together are 1330. These about past conflicts between Wikipedia and the Church of Reality. --Marcperkel (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the best interest of Wikipedia to have a broad and thorough reference site. Otherwise, the website that Wikipedia recommends we start could overshadow them.
Here is an article Wikipedia might be interested in. Is reality real? Does reality have merit? Should we believe in reality? Wiki thinks so... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmic Ray76 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Cosmic Ray76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KeepThis is a perfectly valid organization which has the potential to improve the appearance of humanity. Why delete it? Afraid of running out of space? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatshare (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Flatshare (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Unless Wikipedia proposes to begin sorting religious sects into "real" and "unreal" or "acceptable" and "unacceptable" [a highly ironic undertaking under the circumstances] to promote or not promote, then we need to keep this page active. To remove this page would be narrow minded at least, and not in the interest of those seeking information on this topic. I don't think we really want to get into the business of passing judgment on other people's religious beliefs here, do we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberus1949 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can we get published, encyclopaedia on the existence of Wikipedia? You know, outside sources from outside your own site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTHartke (talk— JTHartke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. contribs) 17:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is much that goes on and the Church of Reality is part of it. There is no good reason to remove this. Why would corporate media (what the removers call "legitimate media") report on another challenge to their corporate "God"? But plenty of people have talked, a fact that can be confirmed by googling "Church of Reality" (with the quotes) and that fact alone has conferred legitimacy. Owlswan (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Owlswan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The reason for deleting it is that information comes only from "unreliable sources," such as the Internet? What about Wikipedia itself--is it such an unreliable source? I personally know a number of members of the Church of Reality, and it has been recognized as a church by the U.S. Government; what more is necessary to show that it is real? I visited the Apostolic Temple Church in South Bend, Indiana, yet the only newspaper mentions of this church are in the South Bend Tribune. Does that mean it doesn't exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russtms1 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Russtms1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It is a tough topic from the point of wikipedia. Church of Reality is a relatively unknown and new religion. This religion could not have been established a 100 years ago, it requires 'modern' thinking. Wikipedia could argue that it is not notable enough en thus using wikipedia to get more attention. On the other side, this is a religion that fills an empty spot in 'religion space'. In order to have full coverage of the different types of religions available, this religion should be mentioned. It has encyclopedic value in my opinion. Eecolor (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Eecolor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep* That the Church of Reality exists is reason enough to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.151.225 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 98.71.151.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Are you serious? (*cough*) - Wikipedia can have a "legitimate" page on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism [4], but not the equally well-fleshed-out and comparatively serious Church Of Reality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.93.105 (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 75.83.93.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Keep" Why would Wikipedia not give the Church of Reality the same consideration it gives other churches? We need more not less rational thought in this country! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srauer08 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Srauer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Wikipedia denies REALITY? --Noahveil (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC — Noahveil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I have an Encyclopedia Britannica from 1965. There is no mention of Wikipedia. Perhaps it should also be deleted? Why is this even an issue?72.226.60.238 (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— 72.226.60.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It is recognized as a religion by the US Government. It is my opinion that any legitimate religion is "notable" or "important" enough to be included in wikipedia. Besides, there are numerous articles about topics less important or notable (ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx) ELITE B MAN (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— ELITE B MAN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I am a member of the Church of Reality. The CoR deserves all the considerations given to other churches. Much of my world view comes from my adherence to the principles taught by the church, such as those found at http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/the_sacred_principles/ 70.90.129.9 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— 70.90.129.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I vote keep. The web site/ forum exists and has active members. They espouse a growing concept. Is there some bias going on here that only wants to back established large scale religions?? Just a thought. en Eldernorm (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Eldernorm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The Church of Reality is a real organization and deserves a mention in this rag of a pseudo-encyclopedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.22.60 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 68.124.22.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep""" As with any other valid, accurate information, the information regarding the Church of Reality should be kept on Wikipedia. 2010.01.25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.141.254 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I vote to keep the Church and quit the cencorship attempt by Wiki.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renodave (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Renodave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Inbound Links Go to GOOGLE and search "Link: churchofreality.org" and you will see that the Church of Reality is linked to from 34,300 web pages. If that isn't notable then Wikipedia is dishonest. --Marcperkel (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The arguments to delete fall into to reasons. One the lack of "notability" and two the supposed lack of lack of reliability attributed to Marc Perkel. If notability means the willingness of people to support the Church of Reality then one need look no further than the number of responses to this attempt to kill the article. There are more Keep post and those posts are more lengthy and varied than the single lines given by those who want the article. As far as Mr. Perkel's reliability, the man has had a web presence for at least 15 years; as far the WWW is concerned his behavior is an open book. If the poster who alleges that Perkel is unreliable was able to provide proof of that he certainly could have provided specific citations.
The Church of Reality deserves the same respect that other minor religions deserve.
I am not a member of the Church nor do I plan to join. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia and one of the reasons is because of the breadth of articles. Deleting an article needs a higher burden than those who wish to delete have shown.Buzzcook (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— Buzzcook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: I am new to this however I felt a need to speak. I currently "work" (unpaid) as a Rev for the Church of Reality here in south west Mo. I see no valid reason to delete this entry. However I do understand that this is not a vote to keep or delete the article, I just wanted to add a short note. And I hope I have done it right... Rev Dr Alan (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Rev Dr Alan FCD Prime— Rev Dr Alan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP: Prove to me that any other religion is factual, or just delete them all. Is Wikipedia now in the business of only publishing accurate facts? (I applaud monitoring posts that pertain to real subjects and tangible facts, but all religions are simply "belief"-based, and therefore all should be allowed. Then you can censure for historical facts, influence, etc., but to not allow one? That's absurd.)

KEEP: If we need to publish more material, I for one am willing to publish... but just how much material is needed?

KEEP: The Church is informative, and entertaining. It would be a shame to have it go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.40.5 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of facts. The church is a fact worthy of noting, it is not listed as a popularity contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.19.161 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Church of Reality is a real church. Are the moderators at wikipedia so threatened by a new religion they have to ban it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.192.247 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not getting it YOU don't need to publish anything. Anything published by you is not independent. It's stuff like articles ABOUT (not just mentioning) the Church in reliable sources that are not editable by you (or me, unless I happened to be a staff writer there). "Is Wikipedia now in the business of only publishing accurate facts?" Weren't we from the start? That's what encyclopaedias are for. "all religions are simply "belief"-based" - yes, but if there is little or no independent factual coverage of them, how do we know they're not something made up one day? Some Scouts I knew created a religion (Nevillism) to use for a My Faith Badge. Does Nevillism deserve an article? It's got a belief system and a theology, and the Scouts claimed to be believers - quite convincingly (they got their badges...). I'm not saying that's what the Church of Reality is - but it is up to YOU to PROVE it isn't. At the moment, all we're getting is personal opinions from people we don't know - who might be different people or just one with a bike. I've looked for references. So far I've found self-published or bloggy things. And I've also found The Christian Church of Reality - which doesn't have an article here. Not all religions do. Please do realise that this is not a head count. It's a discussion based on facts or lack of facts. Produce the facts about your beliefs. Independently sourced. Not forum or blog, or self-published. By the way - we're not trying to ban any religion. Just make sure that all articles are properly verifiable. You are quite free to have your religion. Having an article is another matter. Peridon (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is you who aren't getting it. If you Google "link: churchofreality.org" you'll see 34,400 sites linking to us. Surely out of 34k web sites there is SOMETHING that you consider to be a "reliable source". Maybe you should define what YOU mean by reliable sources? --Marcperkel (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N, WP:BURDEN as a part of WP:V. For those who don't like alphabet soup, N is the notability policy, and V is for verifiability. BURDEN is where it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." This means the creator of the article in this sort of case, but friends and colleagues are also welcome to assist. Believe me, if I found a suitable reference I'd put it on the table here. I just thought I'd found one but it just contained a comment by mperkel. That was the only one in the first 100 ghits. Peridon (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that anything touched by mperkel makes it not reliable? --Marcperkel (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two classes of people It seems that there are two classes of people here. I don't understand who it is that finally decides this. Are any of you in this discussion some sort of Wikipedia editors? I'd like those with more than normal priveledges to identify themselves so that we know who it is that gets to make the call. Or is the all for show and the back room has already made the call? I'm asking you to reveal the process and the players. --Marcperkel (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The process is described at Wikipedia:Deletion process. As for the players, pretty much anybody can contribute to the discussion. At the end of the discussion period (nominally 7 days), an administrator (see Wikipedia:List of administrators) will come along, read the debate, and figure out what consensus (if any) has been reached. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or else start deleting articles about soccer players in obscure teams in out of the way towns. The Church of Reality is a legitimately new idea and it does have a membership. I am a member of the Church of Reality, and I am not Marc Perkel, in the sense that most people understand that statement (my name is Tom Buckner, and I occupy a physical body in meatspace in North Carolina on the other side of the North American continent). Peridon, above, says "Not forum or blog, or self-published" evidence suffices. But such organizations and social movements always start that way. It has ever been thus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.76.176 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And will be thus. But until they achieve the level of sourcing Wikipedia calls for..... Or until Wikipedia moves the goal posts - you are all welcome to become regular editors and then move up to places where you can influence policymaking. Takes time. By then, the CoR will have the refs it needs anyway. Peridon (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response So far as taking part in an AfD is concerned, there is one basic class. Anyone is welcome to make a serious contribution. Whether we are regular editors or admin people or SpAs (single purpose accounts), we can contribute. Exceptions are when apparently separate accounts turn out to be run by one person - that's sockpuppetry if done directly, or meatpuppetry if using other people as puppets. When the discussion period had run its course, an experienced admin will weigh up the arguments and either make a decision based on them, or relist for more discussion. If an admin's decision is thought to be faulty, there can be appeal. (Don't ask me how - nevewr done it.) I will admit that when the arguments are weighed up, SpAs do carry less weight - usually because they do not contribute much (or anything at times) to the discussion. Me? I'm a regular editor approaching 6000 edits, and working mainly in the edits by new accounts area, AfD (Articles for Deletion), and improving articles by doing copy-eds. I also sometimes translate from French, and have edited on the French and Norwegian Wikipedias. I prefer to save an article if possible, but if there's no willingness to listen or help from the supporters there's often little I can do. I also hunt spam - but am willing to help people turn a spammy advert into a proper article - if they will ask me to. BTW, I rather like the sound of your church, but already have a religion I am happy with - and I'm not saying what it is. It doesn't conflict with knowledge and investigation, like so many of the holy book bound ones do. Peridon (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'm interested. What is your church? --Marcperkel (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I never say. (I never give my real name(s), either.) It doesn't affect my neutrality, anyway, and it isn't Nevillism. Now, about those references - get your supporters digging. With all those ghits, there could well be something there. AfD usually lasts a week. Peridon (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is obscure. I can't find a web site that explains it. As to references I gave you 34k references. I have no idea what you are looking for. --Marcperkel (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You pointed to 34k of mentions of a set of words. YOU (that is, the creator and supporters of the article) have to sift out the ones that fit in with the policies I gave you. Filter out all the blogs, forums and so on. Look for the newspaper articles - not just mentions - or magazine articles (not your inhouse mag, of course, or ones where they print anything sent in that's not actually obscene or libellous), or television reports (but beware of CNN - much of their site is user submitted and regarded here with suspicion). Do look at the Flying Spaghitti Monster article. It cites 68 references, enough of which are considered reliable and independent for the article to survive. You won't need that many - you do need more than the Oakland Tribune one. Peridon (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MarcPerkel Would it be possible to try and get other news organizations to document you? It seems Flying Spaghetti Monster Flying Spaghetti Monster is notable enough... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.32.10 (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to prove anything. I didn't write the article and I don't have to defend the notability of the Church of Reality. The Church of Reality has come under attack before by Delitionists and it's a flaw in the wikipedia system. When you point out the obvious and they don't get it then there's no point in continuing to do so. --Marcperkel (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a flaw; these are policies and guidelines. You may disagree with them and that's fine, but if you want Wikipedia to have an article about this organization you'll need to find us some reliable secondary sources. No one here is trying to deny its existence, just its notability. If all those Google results really turn up nothing that we can use then sorry, it's just not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Reach Out to the Truth 20:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia; I'm curious about this "Nevillism". I may have heard about it from a young scout. I may have heard about it from some very unknown website. Never-the-less, I'm curious. Small as the religion is, I want a source to learn about what the hell I just heard. Do I agree with it? Do I want to have it banned? How would I ever know? I would turn to a reliable source which has a broad base of knowledge. Wikipedia. I will judge for myself and not try to supress information like a third world leader. Its like the Ebay of information. Whatever IT is, its on Wiki. Except Ebay doesn't delete pages designated for dolls with purple dresses for the simple reason that the website owners do not like dolls with purple dresses. Of course this is just a metaphor. Wikipedia MUST maintain the high standard of a broad base of information to keep their high standards and broad source of information. If I cannot find the things I am looking for on Wikipedia, why would I ever bookmark it? Why would it ever be my go-to source for info? I caould always replace Wikipedia with Google. They are not prejudice. To maintain respect as an open source of information, you must keep it open to information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.0.113 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google reveals quite a few Nevillisms, none of which appear to be the one I mentioned. I think it's a name that begs to be picked on. Peridon (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Church of Reality is bigger than you think. I've been a member since Marc Perkel explained his ideas on BartCop several years ago. I live in New Hampshire, and if anybody calls me a meat puppet I'll sock him! Wikipedia claims to be unbiased and serious, not a free advertising forum. How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover%27s_Morning_Glory I think it looks like blatant self-promotion, for some sick radio shock-jocks. What is their significance in the big picture here?64.222.179.187 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— 64.222.179.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep! If Wikipedia wants to eliminate all references to any religion, then delete the Church of Reality. If Wikipedia wants to eliminate "unpopular" knowledge, then delete the Church of Reality. If, on the other hand, Wiki wants to live up to its mission then KEEP these pages. Just say "No" to ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSS-666 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — RSS-666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep! It's only fair to include it since there are those who would like to be members who should be able to find information here and those of us who are members can contribute information here.Leftcoasttoo (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— Leftcoasttoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep I would argue that no religion has started out as a "documented" entity. Since the church of reality is probably one of the few religions to begin after the advent of the internet, I could probably safely assume that it is at a disadvantage with religions which may be hundreds or thousands of years old. Keep it to see if it "evolves" and decide later. By the way, it is a very unusual take on religion since what is "believed" must in effect be real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kroc7333 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — Kroc7333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep what's wrong with believing in what's real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.24 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 72.234.207.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Nobody's trying to tell you what you can or can't believe. Feel free to keep on believing in what's real, and maybe some day you'll receive significant coverage that qualifies the organization for a Wikipedia article. The Church of Reality won't cease to exist just because its Wikipedia article is deleted. Wikipedia doesn't dictate reality. Reach Out to the Truth 20:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The Church of Reality is an important part of human evolution. It is the beginning of the realization that we are crippled by our need for religion, when we have to use religion of the meta-physical, and it says, "Why not use the physical world we have as our religion?" It is beautiful and necessary for us to understand this. I have read it online, which is where I read my news sources. Not in physical papers, not on TV stations. Wikipedia is online, which is where Im reading and writing this now. Not in physical papers, and not on TV stations. The fact that the Church of Reality is a new entity is part of the point here, and keeping the information suppressed just continues it to be less known. I believe the attempts to delete this are religious bigotry, wrapped in the bureaucratic code of Wikipedia editors. Many people have pointed out many sources that only exist online and are written up in Wikipedia, and many little-known items that are left in Wikipedia. Do your job and leave content that people want to learn about in Wikipedia. GeoffHowland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.77.65 (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 209.75.77.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep it's what free speech is all about. Support the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.250.243.17 (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 149.250.243.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Wikipedia should accord the same deference to the Church of Reality as to other churches. D.Boldt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.20.6 (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 69.238.20.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Why would you want less diversity on your site? The beauty of wikipedia is the mystery of where your personal exploration of the site might take you. If you delete this page, that's one less avenue of discovery. On another note, I found and joined the Church of Reality through wikipedia. That may not me notable to you personally, but it's notable to me. To delete this page would be notable as well, as I will personally write and submit an op-ed relating my views regarding your deletion policy and submit it to as many news outlets as I can. Thanks for your consideration. Noah Kerwin (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — Noah Kerwin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Why is this even being challenged?...If this is to be deleted, 99% of the crap on this website needs deleting as per your policy. Im gonna have to start cleaning house here if this gets deleted. 69.171.160.69 (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— 69.171.160.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note: you are very welcome to start nominating crap for deletion - right now. I would ask you to read the relevant policies first, however. Just to be on the safe side. Peridon (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Wikipedia is to be a comprehensive repository of information surely it would to better to keep as much information as possible in the interest of providing as much information as possible on any given subject. Knowledge should not be a popularity contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipua (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI've heard of the church of reality before, it's not something new. 174.21.210.110 (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— 174.21.210.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I'm not a regular contributor because I believe one must be absolutely sure about what one contributes to this knowledge-site, but knowledge is what this site is about. Why delete the information about a philosophical group ? If you do so you must delete all information about any sect at all... about any philosophy that ever existed. This is not good. Information should be available. If you insist, add a caveat. But let the information exist.--Babetheke (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— Babetheke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Wikipedia is full of absolutely worthless nonsense, but this is a reasonable addition tot he Wikipedia ouvre, so keep the Church of Reality. Why keep pages with stuff about magic creatures that walk on water or raise the dead but delete something that describes reality? Seriously, Wikipedia people, you should show more sense than this.

Keep Church of Reality seems to be at the same stage as the Church of the Subgenius in 1988, except not as publicity-seeking. I'm not a member of CoR or any organization but it seems to me that if CoR is notable enough to attract my attention to edit one of these pages for the first time to try to prevent a regrettable case of censorship they are notable enough to occupy a small space in Wikipedia -- perhaps with more original research as in the case of the Church of the Subgenius 12.74.22.70 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People look to Wikipedia for accurate information about anything. The primary question for any article under review should be "is this accurate?” If an article is accurate, full of facts, and not just self-promotion then there's no reason to delete it. If your goal is to delete useless crap from Wikipedia, you might want to begin with anything that starts with "List of". Advocating the deletion of a purely factual article about something that goes against the establishment is simply censorship. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a purely establishment encyclopedia. If you value history at all then this article is already notable enough. There needs to be an article here, whether it is about the church itself or a chronicle of it being targeted for deletion from Wikipedia. Forbidding any article about it, whether a contemporary or a purely historical account, is simply not acceptable at this point. Coupdeforce (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)— Coupdeforce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep:~~ The Church of Reality has now been mention in "Courthouse News Service" http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/28/24162.htm This was in regard to The Church of Realities court of appeals case about use of marijuana.
"(CN) - Members of the Church of Reality, who say the Drug Enforcement Administration is stifling some "really good ideas" by refusing to let them use marijuana, lost their appeal in the 9th Circuit."
CN is a reliable news organization and a case that reaches the court of appeals is notable in itself.Buzzcook (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)— Buzzcook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (y'all !voted above, Jack Merridew )[reply]

Keep I agree with Catherineyronwode Three notables -

Oakland Tribune

Court House News

Public Record

Disclaimer: I am a CoR member. marklhessel —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC). — Marklhessel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DISMANTLE WIKI CABAL I have followed this discussion from the beginning and I am very concerned by what I have witnessed here. It should be obvious to anyone that editors with more 'pull' on this site have already made up their minds to remove the CofR page and that they really aren't interested in having a constructive discussion. The language by proponents of keeping the page have been respectful. By comparison, opponents have been abusive to the extreme, using language that I have found deeply offensive. I would suggest that the behavior of opponents resembles a cabal of overlords striking down comments that they feel don't reflect their own views. Bad form wiki. I have lost much respect for your site. Noah Kerwin (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)— Noah Kerwin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Moving Target "Significant coverage" is vague enough that it leaves open the possibility of 'editors' constantly raising the bar on what might qualify. The COI test is flawed as well as it leaves open the claim that any 'expert' on a subject whom edits a page may be considered to have a COI. The SPAM test doesn't hold up either as I would challenge you to prove that the CoR actively pushes it's data on anyone who doesn't voluntarily seek it. Maybe you consider dissent or any opposing views to be spam? Noah Kerwin (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It appears that Editors of Wikipedia do not believe in Reality. I am a Church of Reality member and am sick and tired of "religious" folk trying to ram their beliefs down my throat everyday yet you (Wikipedia and other religious zealots) can't seem to understand - this is it, this is reality, you do not get a second chance at life (be reborn), this is REALITY, yet you allow every other sky fairy story (religion) to be promoted on this site. Truly unbelievable! --Jamminjoey (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)— Jamminjoey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Semi-protected: At this point I have semi-protected this AfD to stop the ridiculous sockpuppet / meatpuppet show. Sandstein 19:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Free Speech Are you calling Realists meat puppets and sock puppets? I formally must insist you apologize to the membership. Wikipedia put it out there for comment and voting and that is what people did. How do you expect people to act in the face of religious bigotry? --Marcperkel (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The IRS have registered The Church of Reality as an organisation that is tax exempt which means they where satisfied with it's status as a church. The fact that it's credibility is disputed by Wikipedia where the organisation has nothing to gain, while the IRS accepts it's credibility when there are tax dollars involved makes me wonder whether that we are dealing here with religious discrimination by Wikipedia's members (the many against the few), more than credibility. Surely a document from the IRS can be considered an acceptable "source". See http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/irs_tax_exempt_status/ Ms730111 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it sounds like the IRS is not satisfied that CofR is a church, but they are satisfied that it's a charitable organization. Quoting from the cited page: So I changed the application to be a charitable organization which got rid of the church test and it sailed right through. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected RoySmith. However it was still granted exemption. So by deleting the article you are attempting to delete it out of existence as if it does not exist which is also not the case. Ms730111 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the IRS status of the CoR is charitible/educational/religious organization. In the IRS language a church is a brick and morder building. For example, Baptists is a religious organization. The First Baptist Church of Possum Trot Arkansas is a church in IRS speak. --Marcperkel (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm agnostic but I also respect everyone's beliefs. That said, where are the new stories about your church? Where are the mentions in published books, newspapers, TV news coverage, magazines, or other media? Sure there are other articles that fail this test too and they are being dealt with (or will be in time)...just look at the rest of the Articles for Deletion page and you can see we are not 'picking' on this article or saying because the article lacks sources that somehow the religion is invalid. We are simply saying, if you want an article on Wikipedia, show the 3rd party media sources that show it is notable. Instead of rallying against the rules, how about looking for ways to satisfy and meet the rules? Just saying "Keep" and some nonsense about censorship isn't going to stay this articles execution. Instead, look for sources to force the admin to keep your article. As of now, the article looks to be headed to the electric chair. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 05:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable source mentions, and sock flood. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT. Ugh this is just giving me a headache now. JBsupreme (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per WP:ORG, and the fact that this AFD has such a ridiculous number of socks/meats (possibly an all-time AFD record?) strongly suggests this is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a means of advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section break to make editing easier

I've unprotected this, in the hopes that rational discussion can continue with everybody having an opportunity to add to the consensus building. Hopefully things won't get out of hand. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Roy--Marcperkel (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to the term Meat Puppet to describe Church of Reality members - If you want a rational discussion I suggest that your editors stop referring to Church of Reality members as meat puppets. These are people who strongly object to the idea of deleting the CoR. They are not familiar to some of the bizarre rules and cultural nuisances of the Wikipedia editor community. Meat Puppets mean that I control them as if they were mindless cult followers and the term is both insulting and demeaning. --Marcperkel (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a relatively long-time editor here (almost 4 years, anyway), i see no reason to delete this entry. I am an inclusionist and believe that Wikipedia can spare the bandwidth for all sorts of odd things. The question of "notability" is at issue, and this brings up some fundamental principles. If a group has, say, 10,000 members but is not mentioned in a printed newspaper or book, is it "notable"? This church has been mentioned in at least one newspaper article. Some might interpret that as "not notable" while others might say that the church is "not publicity-seeking" and a third group (to which i belong) might see this an example of the failure of the decaying print media in an increasingly onine world to function as test-beds for Wikipedia notability. But all that aside, is it really the function of a church to seek publicity? Isn't having a large member-base sufficient, for a church? After all, a church is not a commercial enterprise. Anyway, i say keep it. Catherineyronwode (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The accusations of meat puppetry and sock pupptry are highly offensive. The accusations that the Church of Reality is using Wikipedia for "advertising" is even more offensive. In my opinion, those who make such accusations ought to take a good, long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves what they are doing here, contributing to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." What part of "anyone" do they not understand? Catherineyronwode (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the shift to web-based news is commonly understood as inevitable and this ought to be consolidated into Wikipedia's notability quotient. The San Mateo County Times also covered the Church of Reality. I am a Church of Reality member in good standing and do not like the resort to sabotage which insulting claims of meat-puppetry constitute.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plea for sanity. I've been watching this debate since it started, and I'm not happy the way it's going. There is much heat and not enough light, and the problem is not confined to one side or the other.

To the people on the keep side, please be aware that nobody here is trying to put the CofR down. We're not bigots, or censors, we're just a bunch of people trying to write an encyclopedia. Like any other encyclopedia, we have guidelines for what's appropriate to include and what's not. There is, amazingly enough, nobody who's in charge. Some of us (like myself) are administrators. We have the ability to delete articles, but we don't decide which ones to delete. That decision is made by consensus, in discussions like this one. An administrator simply carries out the will of the group. And, no, the decision is not pre-ordained. I have no idea who will close this AfD, but I am sure that whoever it is, they will spend a good long time reading everything that has been said here and make as fair a decision as they know how to do.

To the people on the delete side, please be equally aware that the WP:SPA editors here are not evil people. They may not know our rules, but that means they need education, not abuse. I totally agree with user:Catherineyronwode that the terms sockpuppet and meatpuppet are offensive, at least in this context. I have no problem applying them to people who have been around wikipedia for a long time, know how things work, and are intentionally trying to game the system. But that's not the case here. If I were to walk into, say, a Catholic church, or a Shinto shrine, I would be woefully ignorant of the rules and customs. I would hope if I accidentally transgressed something I didn't understand, I would be treated with a certain amount of courtesy as it was explained to me what I did wrong and please don't do it again.

With all that said, let me remind people that there really is only one thing which is to be decided here; does this article meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:DEL#REASON? That's it. I would hope everybody taking part in this discussion would re-read that section and try to frame their arguments to address those issues. Looking over the list right now, it seems that the most applicable questions are, Have all attempts to find reliable sources failed?, and Does this subject meet our notability guidelines? That's what the debate is all about, and that's what will weigh in the decision when this AfD is closed. Everything else is just noise.

-- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, your side has called us meat puppets and sock puppets. Your side has accused our side of using Wikipedia for advertising purposes. In the past your side took the Church of Reality down because your side determined that we had one single member. The problem in this argument is that the problems are on your side. Your side has been insulting to our side and your seem to be harboring ill will towards us. And you cannot come here and complain about the behavior of people who have a much more of a firm grasp of the obvious than your side does. The bottom line is - we're right and you are wrong. This process is exposing a flaw in the Wikipedia system and I see it as an opportunity to change and improve yourself. Wikipedia is a great resource and I think it is up to those of us involved, as I am an editor myself, to preserve and improve it. After all, do you want history laughing at you 20 years from now talking about how Wikipedia took down the Church of Reality. I don't think so. --Marcperkel (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't "take down the Church of Reality". This is just an encyclopedia; it lacks any real power. The ones with the power are those that are writing about (or not writing about) the Church of Reality. We don't delete things just because we don't like them. We delete them because they don't meet our standards for inclusion or violate some other policy. So please don't interpret this as an attack on you or the Church of Reality, because that's not what it is. Reach Out to the Truth 21:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems less than notable and the SPA swarm is really creeping me out. - Schrandit (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said by others - no evidence of notability - really! - Josette (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To Mr Perkel and others who have come here with a specific agenda, I suggest you read WP:COI as you seem to have a conflict of interest here. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. - Josette (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know that one of your rules says that if Jimmy Whales intervenes that he can override decisions to delete and he has already done that. So if you are going by your own rules then this process wouldn't be an issue. --Marcperkel (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's Wales, not Whales. Your reply, above, is non-responsive (and unlikely). Happy editing, Jack Merridew 18:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the typo. Maybe you should do some research. Jimmy Wales did intervene last time to reestablish the Church of Reality entry after it was deleted. So for those who are quoting rules you should verify this. --Marcperkel (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good at this, really; I've looked. a) Jimmy's not opining here. b) he won't. c) you've evaded the COI issue, again. d) this will be deleted. e) let me know if you take it to WP:DRV, ok? Happy editing, Jack Merridew 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Jimbo wants to restore it, he can go ahead and do that. We're not stopping him from doing whatever he wants. Reach Out to the Truth 21:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and promotional; Per DGG; salt it this time. 3 points IRL for POINT re Religion. Impressive SPA vote stacking; who canvased y'all? ;) Jack Merridew 18:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt with the Salt of Truth™. Groovy name, cool tax scam, unfortunately quasi-religious organisations designed specifically to separate the gullible from their dough are commonplace. pablo_hablo. 19:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nice to see that it does have a few third-party references, but if this is a notable religion surely there must be more than that. Reach Out to the Truth 21:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article in Leagle - same subject.--Marcperkel (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article. That's the automated search result of a robot indexing court records. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admission by Conduct By collapsing and trying to hide the KEEP votes Wikipedia editors are admitting by their conduct that their position is invalid on the merits. When one has to cheat to win then one is a loser. --Marcperkel (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you said jimbo was going to come down from the heavens in his magic helicopter and force us to ignore all our content guidelines and keep this spamotional article for you... so what are you worried about?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section break to make editing easier

Delete. The only real issue here is notability, which would be demonstrated by significant independent third-party coverage. I see no evidence of that. The Oakland Tribune and San Mateo County Times are both reputable third-party sources, but between the two of them, there's a single article (one reprinted it from the other, or they both got it from a wire service), which falls into the category of "local interest". The Courthouse News Service is a niche publication which publishes, daily comprehensive reports on new appellate rulings. In other words, they publish something on pretty much anything which comes through the court docket (in this instance, a report that the CofR lost an appeal of a Drug Enforcement Administration ruling). Fails WP:N. Fails WP:COI. Fails WP:SPAM -- RoySmith (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt I agree with RoySmith (talk · contribs)'s comments about why the coverage provided by the "keep" opinions is insufficient to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 31 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.