Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Boris

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 of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Boris

This is clearly a nonsense article which has been deleted five times before. David Hoag 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. David Hoag 19:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I do not believe it is nonsense being an avid follower of this religion I wonder why you are stifling my beliefs? You yourself say you enjoy writing articles on little-known subjects is that not true? Why is it that I cannot write one as well on something I believe is very important as it plays an integral role in my life? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Church of Boris (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC).
• Delete. Non-notable/hoax, and possibly a speedy under CSD G4. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 19:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Although you may call it non-notable I persist in stating that this page is no hoax. (Church of Boris 19:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC))
• Speedy delete. Reposts of speedied pages automatically meet CSD. PJM 19:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I was unaware other such pages had existed and were deleted but I still must say that I believe this page should remain. Church of Boris 20:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Obvious joke, hoax, etc and almost certainly unverifiable. If Church of Boris wants this to be kept he should hasten to provide good, easily and independently verifiable citations that show that this church exists and is notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Notability isn't even an issue. The article describes a religion; but it cites no sources, and research turns up no sources. There's no evidence that this purported religion has gained any traction in the world outside of its creator, or indeed any evidence that this purported religion exists at all outside of this Wikipedia article. This is original research, and unverifiable.

  Research turns up the fact that there are verifiable churches of Boris about which third parties have published things. There's the Church of Boris and Gleb built in the 11th century at the order of Yuri Dolgoruky in Kideksha. There's also the Orthodox Church of Boris built in 1904 in Daugavpils, Latvia. Unless the article is completely rewritten to be about those churches, delete. Uncle G 21:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The article doesn't discuss a church building in Latvia or Russia. It's clearly nonsense babble about an alleged religion involving reincarnated cats.

• If the "Church of Boris" as described exists, the articel needs cite sources that demonstrate this, and show it's notability. Otherwise, Delete. DES ^(talk) 21:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's really been validly deleted before it can be speedily deleted. DJ Clayworth 22:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The previous deletion was a speedy, giving as a reason (Hoax/prank, just the usual stuff). I thinak that is at best marginally valid, sicne "hoax" is not a reson for speedy deletion under WP:CSD, indeed "patent nonsense" specifically excludes hoaxes. Let's let this AfD run for a bit. DES ^(talk) 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, c'mon people. This is obviously similar to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Turn your funny bones back on and you'll clearly see it is a joke. BJAODN. --Pc13 22:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a legitimate pop-culture parody. It's a group of people satirizing public policy and political issues. The "Church of Boris" appears to be merely one person typing nonsense into Wikipedia. Therein lies the difference. David Hoag 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:24, 20 November 2005 (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.