Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Easter

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 of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War on Easter

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Non-notable web site / club started within the last two weeks. No alexa rank. Prod contested with edit comment Deleted the deletion notice. Deleting this would just be anti-atheistic predjudice, which I would not like to see on Wikipedia.. Weregerbil 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:WEB or simply as a non-notable publicity stunt by a non-notable group.--Isotope23 15:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with it being non-notable. Brian Flemming is a notable director of a very notable documentary which has been featured in Newsweek Magazine, the LA Times and countless other prominent publications (see http://www.thegodmovie.com/press.php). This is no less notable than anything Michael Moore has done, just perhaps more controversial given that most people aren't athiest whereas there are far more Democrats. As to the length of the article, I will work on fleshing out the article more robustly tonight. -- Zeroverse

Brian Flemming is a notable director of a very notable documentary Wrong and wrong, ast least as far as "notable" is concerned. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you have some references to third parties saying this is important? Press reviews, ...? Notability of the person does not necessarily transfer to everything he does or says. Google finds very little [1]. Weregerbil 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment it doesn't matter how notable Flemming is; that does not confer any notability to a one-off publicity stunt unless major media outlets cover his "War on Easter". to use your example Zeroverse, if Michael More took a dump in a paper bag, walked it up to the front porch of Bush's Crawford Ranch, lit the bag on fire, hid in the bushes, filmed George Bush stomping it out, and them someone created an article called Crawford Ranch Flaming Poo on Bush's Hush Puppies I'd still say delete. If this is important information to you and you can source it then add it to Brian Flemming, but right now I see no strong case for this to exist as a standalone article.--Isotope23 17:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Dunno The site 404s for me and it isn't googling well. Maybe turn this into more than just about Brian Flemming as Bill O'Reilly has gone on at least one War on Easter rant on his radio show. Kotepho 17:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I understand that Bill O'Reilly will be featuring The War on Easter very prominently tonight on his TV show. This isn't a non-issue. Thought I do agree that the "War on Easter" can and should be about more than Flemming's and the Rational Response Sqaud's movement. There is a BIG article here...it just hasn't been written yet. As I've said earlier, when I have more time tonight, I'll get to it. My hope was that others might be able to contribute in the meantime...that is the whole point of wikipedia right? Zeroverse 19:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • At least you are starting to move in the right direction here Zeroverse... yes media coverage is essential in this sort of situation. If nobody covers it a publicity stunt, then really what is the point? I'd still like to see more important national sources... local radio interviews and a blog (lavoice) just don't cut it as sources in my book. worldnetdaily.com isn't what I would call a reliable source. I can't say I have a high opinion of Fox News's journalistic integrity, but Fox New Radio is a good first stab at proving reasonable national media coverage.--Isotope23 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I stated "household name" meaning his name is common knowledge among most Americans. You can have a conversation with any half-wit on the street and they are highly likely to know who Michael Moore is. Whereas this Flemming fellow cannot claim the same. I'm sure he's a nice guy but not notable. Media coverage does not make an individual notable. The individual's achievements make them notable. There are standards to judge this but as I said before, no one here cares if Flemming is notable. You are not arguing along the lines of this AfD which is concerns if War on Easter is notable. It is not. --Strothra 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I appreciate that you are trying to be objective, but I think it's incorrect to say that "the individual's achievements make them notable." What exactly has Michael Moore achieved that Brian Flemming hasn't (other than make more money)? While all your other points about moving/merging this article may be valid, I don't think they should be done under the cloak of "notability." If the article is insufficient at this time, fine...but saying that something isn't notable because Flemming hasn't "achieved" as much as say, Michael Moore, is a poor reason to exclude this article from the public...especially as Easter 2006 is only a few days away and there is very little critism of the holiday in general. The very fact that someone vehemently opposses Easter is notable in itself, and the fact that a growing group of people are committed to this effort is notable on its own merit, Flemming or no Flemming. Brian Flemming is an extremely notable individual in the atheist community anyway. He might not be a "household name" to religious folk that prefer not listening to opposing perspectives, but that doesn't discount his importance to rational thinkers in the freethought community. The War on Easter is extremely important to atheists and freethinkers, and calling it "not notable" because the relative size of the freethought community is miniscule is really just a form of mob rule and bullying. Zeroverse 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
What exactly has Michael Moore achieved that Brian Flemming hasn't (other than make more money)? Well, there's making several internationally released movies, winning an Oscar, producing and hosting two TV series (one in primetime), writing a few internationally best-selling books, and popping up as a pop-culture reference everywhere from Team America: World Police to 24 to Family Guy. Other those things, yeah, he's just like Brian Flemming. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)--
  • Merge into Brian Flemming. I can't find anything online that would make this notable enough for its own article. Just because A is notable and A makes B, that doesn't necessarily make B notable. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteHow notable is a 404ed website?--Tollwutig 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: All of Flemming's websites have apparently been victims of some kind of attack externally or via his host. I understand they will be back up shortly Zeroverse 19:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • So a 404ed website is an attack? --Tollwutig 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • 404 is server unavailable... could be an attack (like DoS), could be software/hardware crash, or could be someone doing an page update and not reloading the pages to the correct place on the server.--Isotope23 19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I know what a 404 means was being a bit sarcastic.--Tollwutig 13:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Eh, it's so hard to tell sarcasm in the written form... especially when you don't know the person writing.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • 404 error is "URL not found". Assuming "attack" from this is assuming that the target is interesting enough for someone to actively attack. A more likely explanation is an incompetent admin. No, there is no great conspiracy to hide this nn stuff. Please let's not pretend someone cares that much. Weregerbil 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete. And as for no one caring enough to "attack" Flemmings websites, it looks to me like some do care just that much. However, I cannot know if that is what caused the sites to vanish today. Check out this person's website attacking Flemming: http://www.beyond-propaganda.com/pages/1/index.htm

  • Absolutely Do Not Delete I do suggest this article be merged with another, but there is no way you can delete this article for being irrelevant or not notable enough. That's just a ridiculous proposition. More than half of the information on this site is only recognizable by a number of people that you can count to in about 30 seconds. Even if notability was the case, Brian Flemming the man who wrote the article on "The War On Easter" also directed a movie: "The God Who Wasn't There" which is the current Number 1 Best Seller on [2] indie film list. On top of that, there are thousands of people that have visited the Rational Responders Website and most of them regulary attend a radio show or catch the latest news on the irrational. Hmm, sounds like The Rational Responders need to take a peek at wiki's editors...--Animefreak1390 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I first point you to WP:WEB, which the website does not meet. Secondly, it doesn't matter how notable Brian Flemming is in relation to War on Easter. Just because he is notable doesn't mean every little thing he does warrents a separate wikipedia article. You've made a good case for Brian Flemming's notability, but nobody is suggesting deletion of his main article. Try proving [War on Easter]] meets WP:WEB instead.--Isotope23 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please login before making comments. Further, you have not invalidated the arguement. The article does not establish the organization's notability regardless of whether or not it's been reported on in a few news outlets. That fact does not make an organization notable. Yahoo and a radio station are hardly major media outlets. FOX News is a major media outlet but it's only one and it a current item. That does not establish notability. --Strothra 01:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Besides, I couldn't find any mention of O'Reilly doing a piece on this on his website archives. All I could find was a bunch of blogging about Fox News doing a piece about employers not allowing people to display Easter decorations and other cultural bias against Easter. As far as I can tell it had nothing to do with Brian Flemming and The Rational Response Squad and in fact is exactly the opposite of what Flemming is trying to do.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Do NOT Delete: My home, snailmail and email boxes are spammed with religious propaganda weekly. Some people trying to share an alternative point of view should be applauded. I recently became a fan of the Rational Response Squad, and through them, found this movie. The fact that atheists are giving out copies of their movie for free seems a very "christian" thing to do.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.180.80.74 (talk • contribs).
What?? That's not even an arguement - just nonsense. Also, please sign your comments. --Strothra 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Isotope like I suggested twice in my previous comment on the article, the "The war on easter" article should be merged with either brian flemmings article or one of the correlating Rational Responders biographies. --Animefreak1390 01:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Then lets agree to agree. Someone who is interested in this can just go ahead and boldly merge the content into Brian Flemming's main article.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP, at least for the next couple months. This topic may ultimately justify it's own web page, or be more appropriate for a section in TGWWT. It all depends on how Christians respond. If today's DoS attack on Flemming's web sites is any indication, this could be significant in it's own right. In summary, my vote is KEEP. Human455 04:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Could be significant" isn't sufficient justification for keeping the article. It violates WP:NOT crystalball clause.--Isotope23 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. More promotional fluff from the ego of Brian Flemming, the distinctly minor movie-maker. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Come on. Are personal attacks really necessary to justify your position? Brian Flemming had nothing to do with the addition of this article and he certainly doesn't make films or spread rational thinking for an ego-boost. A distinctly minor movie-maker? Your unsubtle bias completely undermines any valid points you may have had and frankly didn't add anything constructive to this discussion. I vote not to count your vote. Zeroverse 14:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And what personal attacks would those be? ...frankly didn't add anything constructive to this discussion. On the contrary, they're noting the source of this particular aggressive PR campaign. Wikipedia? NOT a free PR resource, no matter how fervent. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Calton previously tried to delete the Wikipedia entry for The God Who Wasn't There: [3] Human455 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment what Calton has done in the past is irrelevant to this discussion.--Isotope23 16:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: It's relevant if he and/or a group of people are trying to delete lots of atheist Wikipedia entries. Why is there simultaneously another VfD attack on Atheists of Silicon Valley? [4] Human455 02:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheists of Silicon Valley (Second nomination) was nominated by pm_shef, not Calton... so unless you have some overwhelming proof that there is a secret cabal working against "Atheist articles", it's a completely irrelevant point. 2 AfD's don't equal "lots of atheist Wikipedia entries". The reason there is a concurrent AfD of 2 "Atheist" articles is coincidence (I'm too lazy to count but there are probably about 600+ articles on active AfD right now... meaning "Atheist" articles make up 0.3% of articles on AfD) and more due to the fact that the 2 articles make no strong case for meeting their respective guidelines.--Isotope23 02:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll take this opportunity to point out that User:Jason Gastrich was banned in part for attempting an actual campaign against articles on atheists. We don't put up with that kind of crap here, and the fact that nothing bad's happened to Carlton is pretty good evidence that he's not doing anything of the sort. The only campaign I've seen him wage is against bad articles. -Colin Kimbrell 13:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Do NOT Delete: Has it occured to those from Wiki that maybe some of us have been coming to this site for the longest time and have not posted anything on any topic, however but because this issue is so important for us, we feel the need to post for the first time?! Thanks for not allowing my one post to get less weight than those regular posters, although I have been and am a lifetime user. 65.40.245.66
    • In answer to your question: no. Why would this time be different from all the other times that the sock drawer burst open? --Calton | Talk 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
If you really were longtime lurkers, I think you would've known more about the way AFD works. -Colin Kimbrell 13:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If the antics make it into the news in a major source, then maybe. Martinp 15:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just letting you know it's at least hitting joke news as it was covered on The Colbert Report this week, or at least the headline was War on Easter. Still don't think it has enough notability yet. My suggestion is give it year, if this group gets a strong campaign together it might make it notable enough.--tollwutig
  • Delete nn. OSU80 04:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Radagast83 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. 132.241.246.182 06:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per martinp. Sandstein 19:22, 18 April 2006 (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_War_on_Easter_6ff7.html"