Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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. Neutralitytalk 20:56, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Church of Reality

The Church of Reality ironically doesn't appear to exist within the realm of reality. it appears to be someone's idea of a joke religion, that isn't very funny. 3,300 google hits, mostly on infidel message boards and the like, and it is POV. Dunc|☺ 10:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Clearly just one man trying to get tax exempt status. Jimbobsween
  • Delete. I think the guy is probably San Francisco-earnest, but I don't think he's gotten enough attention to be notable yet (i.e. like the Church of the Subgenius), and Wikipedia is not a place to promote something not-yet-notable. The user who created this seems to be the same fellow who founded the religion, never a good sign (see the talk page).--Fastfission 14:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Church of Reality has existed for 7 years, it returns 2610 hits on Google and has been granted a registered trademark by the United States. This is just an attempt by Christians to suppress competition. These same people are attaching anything relating to the Church of Reality See also: doubt based --Marcperkel 15:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not religious in the least, so you needn't worry about that being a motivation (I was actually quite active in the Bay Area freethought communities when I lived out there). I have here a page from your blog which says that the Chuch was about to launch in December 2004, and another from July 2004 saying you were still working on its "doctrine", so claiming it has existed for "7 years" seems like a bit of a stretch. Most of the Google hits are either a few bloggers saying "huh?" or things that you seem to have posted yourself to open directories. Trademark status means nothing other than that you filled out a form. We're not "attacking" anything, we just don't think it conforms to Wikipedia inclusion requirements. No need to get paranoid. --Fastfission 16:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Why don't you do a whois on the domain churchofreality.org and you'll see it was created on 11/08/1998. You can also search archive.org and see old versions of the web site. In the Church of Reality we are always working on our doctrine. --Marcperkel 16:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Established parody religion, like Landover Baptist Church. -- BD2412 talk 15:57, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
    • Under what standard is it "established" except that a guy has self-promoted it on the internet, has made a website for it, and has registered its name as a trademark? None of those things make it very "Established" in my mind. If you look at the sites linking to his website, none give the impression that this is a phenomena nearly as well-known or notable as Landover Baptist. This looks like just one guy to me. --Fastfission 16:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • And you looked at all 2610 Google references and came to that conclusion? I was interviewed on Air America Radio by Mike Malloy who did a spacial show on the Church of Reality. What does it take to prove to you that it is big enough for your tastes?--Marcperkel 16:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement and use of the Wikipedia for promotion or gain of notability. --Sn0wflake 16:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And when we advertise Wikipedia for gain of notability, it's not ok? I've been an active member of the IBS Self Help group and I posted an promotional offer to the Church of Reality in two places: Church of Reality - my way of life and Invitation to the Church of Reality. Ironically I link to Wikipedia for promotion and gain of notability. So what I'm doing is not kewl eh? --Tommynchucky
  • Delete. This user has been scattering articles and edits around, all reflecting his personal beliefs (beliefs that I partly share, incideentally, but that's not the point), including Natural religion (which another user has made into a disambiguation page) and Doubt based. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a precedent that 1430 google hits are sufficient for an article to be noteworthy. ~~~~ 17:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There's no hard-and-fast line on Google hits - it's just one piece of the puzzle. Looking at the main site itself, and at some of the links Google comes up with, it seems that it has made some waves in a variety of places. It needs severe cleanup - "we believe" has no place in an encyclopedia. I'm hesitant to vote for something that has generated so many sockpuppets (mostly on the votes below so far), but I'm going weak keep. ESkog 17:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But there's also the issue of the quality of those hits. As it stands, most of those hits are just messages he's left on message boards all over the web. It's a tactic that gets ultra-vain Shawn Mikula 78,000 hits. By comparison Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhnbs) gets 7,000 hits but many from different sources. Dunc|☺ 18:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. On the surface level, the Church of Reality appears Discordian but if you examine it is a serious competitor to the marketplace of religion. I am a member and am also a secular humanist. What makes it different is that has a different leadership. It is a memetic splinter off of it. A similar thing happened when the Secular Student Alliance branched out of the Campus Freethought Alliance (under the direction of the Council for Secular Humanism). The SSA wanted to be autonomous and many of the members have dual involvement. Tommynchucky June 04, 2005 2:43 EST
    • This is sockpuppet. special:contributions/Tommynchucky (unsigned comment at 19:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC), by Duncharris. Paul August ☎ 15:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • A sockpuppet is defined as "an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Where is your evidence that I'm posting under multiple usernames? Do you have proof of IP logins from any of the admins? Tommynchucky June 04, 2005 3:15 EST
        • Gosh, you know a lot for a complete newcomer. But then, your first and only edits were here, so you're very special kind of newcomer... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Quoting from Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion "It is difficult to tell sock puppets from newcomers. If you are contributing your first article, or are a newly pseudonymous user, please state this clearly and up-front, and please don't become offended if another Wikipedian points out your lack of editing history." I am a newbie. Capishe? Tommynchucky June 04, 2005 5:10
            • Quoting from the top of this very page: "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm a member of this religion, and although unusual as far as religions go, it is certainly very real.
    • Voted by 66.92.0.86 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2005 Jun 4 (according to edit history. Uncle G 21:00, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC))
  • Keep Their are actual hits, and while it is not very notable their is info on the church and the webpage is developed. I don't believe someone would put that much work into the webpage if the church didn't exist. Falphin 19:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sock puppet limit has been reached. RickK 20:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, advertising. —Xezbeth 20:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Use of wikipedia as advertising; sockpuppet abuse. — Asbestos | Talk 20:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The raw number of Google hits can be instructive but alone it can just mean that someone has been agressivley posting links on blogs and forums, sending out press releases that are automatically picked up on some web sites, submitting listings to various directories, etc... That is what this looks like to me. No real third party comentary or other validation that I could see. One person can get a couple of friends together call it a religion - that is exercising freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc... However, it should have some broad support before it gets an article in Wikipedia. If 10 people form a local club in S.F., I'll bet it would be deleted. If 10 people with common beliefs call themselves a religion, I don't see how the group is any more encyclopedic. DS1953 20:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems like an attempt at promotion. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Paul August ☎ 20:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. no notability presented mikka (t) 21:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - significance not yet verified, self-promotion --Doc (?) 22:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is said that his birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this. — Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit The Ninth.

    The only member of this purported church appears to be Marc Perkel. The only evidence of its existence stems from that same, single, central source, either from his own vast flood of web log postings and discussion forum contributions, or from other people simply citing the several web sites that he created and owns (perkel.com, churchofreality.org, and bartcop.com, for starters). Marc Perkel doesn't seem to be lacking the ability to create his own soapboxes. Looking at the discussions that Tommynchucky points to above (where the tag team is exactly the same as it is here), people seem to be ignoring what he cries from atop them, rather than joining his purported church. The other two purported members of the purported church's "Council of Realists" are strangely quiet about the entire thing, too. One doesn't even need to read the "Tithing" section of the purported church's "Fundamental Concepts", where it says "I am a person who has unusual mental talents. I think science should study me to see what it is about me that gives me my unusual mental abilities." to know that this is a religion of 1 adherent. And now we have these articles submitted here by User:Marcperkel. Unverifiable to the point of autobiography; and of course Wikipedia is not a soapbox.Delete. Uncle G 22:37, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity, ad, self-promotion. And I'm agnostic. --Etacar11 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have heard of this before, so that established notability for me. Revolución 23:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I see nobody has attacked this vote, though they're more than willing to attack other people by putting up the strawman argument that their vote is "I haven't heard of it, so it must not be notable." RickK 21:56, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place to be promoting a new religion or a place to attempt establishment of new concepts.Tobycat 00:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand the arguments for deletion. They are primarily "vanity" and lack of "notability". It seems that the argument from vanity would imply that if I, someone who is on the emailing list for the church, wrote this thing then it wouldnt be vain and it would be acceptable. And the argument from notability would imply some objective standard of notability, which there is not. Those arguing from notability are just declaring their own ignorance. And those arguing from vanity are just arguing their own contempt. It is just an article about a very real existing church, one that is obtaining IRS status, and one that has a very sympathetic membership. Delete it now, it will be back later, perhaps written by someone notable and not so vain.By the way I am not a "sockpuppet" but I am a new user with no notoriety. And I only know this this article because I am on the CoR mailing list, which says something about how known it is.--Asklocus 02:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well if we do delete it now and it does come back latter, because it has become more well known … well that's the way it's supposed to work. But — it is no part of our mission to help it become more well known. Paul August ☎ 02:57, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • It looks like the Universist Movement is getting the same sentiment for this entry as this one. They have a discussion here with references. They are more notable than the CoR and have gotten publicity in a relatively short period of time. I guess even an article in the New York Times is still not good enough. Also interestingly enough there is an entry for Bright which was started in 2003, and they seem less notable then the Universists. There is overlap in principles in these groups. What is notable is that Starblind and other made the allegation of sockpuppetry without providing any evidence in these talk pages Talk:Universism, Talk:Universist_Movement, Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion/Universist_Movement -- Tommynchucky June 05, 2005 1:45AM EST
Tommynchucky, If you are not a sockpuppet — and I see no proof that you are — then I'm sorry, and I apologize on behalf of Wikipedia, for those who are calling you one. For the record, I don't see Starblind (explicitly) calling you a sockpuppet, it was user Duncharris, who did that, although others have (naturally enough) expressed their suspicions about a new user with no previous edits. Nevertheless, it is a well-respected Wikipedian practice to assume good faith, and we may have fallen short of that here. In any case, as Starblind pointed out it is our policy to listen and consider the comments of new users, but, in our efforts to reach a consensus, we sometimes give less weight to their votes. Paul August ☎ 15:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • User:Asklocus's only edits are to this page. RickK 21:56, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --W(t) 05:45, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  • Delete. Popular religion for sockpuppets and no evidence of notability for humans. Capitalistroadster 08:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems to be vanity. Martg76 09:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I don't even know what a sockpuppet is but I am a human and I am not one. I am the original author and as you can see several church members have verified it is real and notable. I acknowledge how some might think it's self promoting because the founder, me, is the one making the entry. However, who knows it better than I do? Would Bill Gates be prohibited from writing about Microsoft? The membership and the thousands of Google hits and the 7 years of existence make it real enough to keep. --Marcperkel 22:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not verified. carmeld1 23:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity and nonnotable. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 10:43, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No references other than the home site. Quale 02:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Pro Christian dominionists want to suppress the competition and are trying to use censorship to oppress the CoR like they did the Universalists. --Marcperkel 03:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no evidence it's real, and the irony is too feeble to be funny. seglea 18:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Furthermore, there's no evidence that Marcperkel is a serious contributer - he seems to have done nothing on Wiki other than promote this piece of vanity. seglea
  • Delete There may be a number of Google hits, but I don't think they refer to this same "church." It seems to be a one man religion at this point. --Xcali 19:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--Wikipedia:Autobiography--Mark Perkel registered churchofreality.org and is initial/primary author of Church of Reality and related. Also "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)." from the new-article edit page. Niteowlneils 21:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Church of Reality has thousands of members and thousands of links to it on google.--Marcperkel 07:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, joke. There shoudl be option Move to unencyclopedia available. Pavel Vozenilek 20:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable, not verifiable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 Jun 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Church_of_Reality_d419.html"