Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheism

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prometheism

The Prometheism article is non-notable, unencyclopedic original research. It was created on February 4 by an anon IP, believed to be User:Dnagod contribs, who has been banned indefinitely for making anti-Semitic attacks on other editors, and who is an associate of User:Paul Vogel, who has also been banned indefinitely for similar reasons. Prometheism seems to be a set of ideas, invented by Dnagod or his associates, promoting white supremacism, racial separatism, anti-Semitism, and eugenics. Dnagod is the webmaster of a number of websites that promote prometheism, including http://www.prometheism.net, http://neoeugenics.home.comcast.net, and http://www.cosmotheism.net . There apppears to be no evidence outside these websites that prometheism exists as a religion (as the article claimed). A Google search for "prometheism" returns 710 entries [1], which resolve to 191 unique ones [2], which are either from the Dnagod websites, or are mentions of prometheism on discussion sites.

The original text inserted by the anon IP was plagiarized from Dnagod's prometheism website and was blanked because of copyvio. It has now been rewritten by User:Dariodario contribs, a new user who may be Dnagod. The article cites Matt Neunke, called Dr. Matt Neunke by Dariodario, as being the leader of the prometheist religion. A Google search returns 1,760 entries for this name, [3] resolving to 127 unique ones. [4] Nuenke seems to write a lot of book reviews for amazon.com, but I've found nothing that would justify a Wikipedia entry. He's mentioned in glowing terms on the Stormfront discussion group, [5] and has published a book review on the Vanguard site. [6] Dnagod spent his time at Wikipedia posting links to his websites into articles and talk pages, and this article seems like another attempt to promote them. SlimVirgin 08:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete SlimVirgin 08:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, abuse. Szyslak 08:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research about non-notable pseudo-movement. -Willmcw 09:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge content to Cosmotheism, Matt Nuenke, or White nationalist religious movements. -Willmcw 01:04, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Viriditas | Talk 10:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As it stands, the article is little more than an advertisement for a small group of kooks and racists (who seem to be stuck in early childhood — swearing lifelong oaths and the rest, very Enid Blyton), the only criticisms mentioned being those from other kooks and racists who have infinitesimally different views. On the other hand, if the group exists, it should probably be mentioned somewhere. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion for a non-notable organization. Conscious evolution was recently VfD-ed as original research --BM 11:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable mico-religion; original research. AndyL 13:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research and non-notable Trödel|talk 14:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not-notable, original research, advertisement. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not because it's Nazi nutcase drivel, but because it's drivel. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, self-promotion. – flamurai (t) 17:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the current state of the article seems to have resolved the original kookiness. But whether it is notable or not, I'm not sure. But I just wanted to point that out. --Fastfission 21:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's shorter which is an improvement. But it still calls itself a "religion" and claims to be aiming for "godhood." However, it's the lack notability that's the main issue. SlimVirgin 21:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • I cleaned it up, but I didn't alter the basic content, which would require more research. The connection to cosmotheism suggests to me that it isn't unreasonable to characterize it as a religion, and their aim of "Godhood" fits into that context also. (If I were trying to rack up the edit count, I should stop editing these doomed articles.) --BM 21:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I could start the slimvirginist religion today and create my own websites, but that wouldn't mean I'd be using the word "religion" as it's generally understood, and more importantly, wouldn't mean slimvirginism should have a Wikipedia entry. This is more of a non-notability than a content issue, as I see it. SlimVirgin 21:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes — and the peculiar and unexplained use of 'godhood' as something that a group of human beings can achieve puts it pretty firmly in the kookiness bracket, whatever other changes are made. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whenever I hear that word, I think of the British man, former Green Party leader or activist, I believe, and former television sports presenter, who became a godhead, but I forget his name . . . Got it. David Icke. Pronounced Ike, but I always think of it as "Icky". Ended up with two wives, or a wife and live-in mistress. It's interesting how godheads often end up with several devoted women followers. Perhaps that's Dnagod's goal. SlimVirgin 22:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know of him; sort of a D.Icke-head. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LOL, yes, and wouldn't you know it, he's got his own Wikipedia page: David Icke. Regarding the Dnagit notion of "godhood", there are some statements here on a related website, where I think what they mean is that they're atheists, or perhaps with a belief in God as Gaia. Teilhard de Chardin seems to be mentioned a lot. I also just noticed that the main prometheism website is asking for a $100 donation on its front page. Another reason we shouldn't let it use Wikipedia to advertise. SlimVirgin 22:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ack! I'd forgotten about that lizards-are-among-us stuff. You don't think that he is Dnagit do you? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's superb. I wasn't aware of the reptile update, and that the Queen Mother was involved. He's a cross between Dnagit and Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin 22:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Manages to be simultaneously both insignificant and uninformative, with great, unlearnable skill. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Web site advertisement. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 05:38, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, uninformative, un-encyclopediac. -CunningLinguist 09:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.