Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brianism

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. Sango123 (e) 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brianism

An alleged religion-substitute based on the teachings of a "cyber-prophet", but whose website is (and has been for a while) 404. About 750 Googles, none of whihc appear to relate to coverage in reliable sources. Contains unverifiable claims (especially since the primary source no longer exists). So, problems with WP:V, apparent lack of WP:RS, no way of verifying WP:NPOV, quite likely to be original research, and no real way of showing otherwise. As far as I can tell Wikipedia is the primary source of information on this topic. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Previous nomination (Jan 2004) --kingboyk 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 09:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above. I count 760 google hits, Alexa.com shows one site linking to brianism.org = and that's this one. - Glen ^T _C 09:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• KeepDelete (see comments) This is evidently a parody religion that is by definition a joke. Only question is how notable the joke is. Well, not as notable as the flying spaghetti monster, but it seems to gets some reasonable hits on google. Metamagician3000 09:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Which of those sources are reliable? And to what extent is a spoof religion which Googles a fraction of the number of hits I do encyclopaedic? Just zis Guy you know? 10:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, some look otherwise reliable and are not obviously part of the joke. However, prompted by your question, I've spent some time trying to get to the bottom of it. It looks like the creators of this parody religion have been successful in using the Wikipedia article to fool various people such as Webster's On-Line Dictionary into thinking that this is, indeed, a popular joke like the spaghetti monster or whatever (in which case I would consider it to be encyclopedic as long as it was discussed as being a parody or a hoax, not as if it were a real set of beliefs). The article can't bootstrap itself into notability, so I've changed my vote. Metamagician3000 12:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to be notable to me. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, since it doesn't have the popular culture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as judged by a lack of google hits and the fact that I've never heard of it (obscure religions may well deserve entries if there are people who take them very, very seriously, but this doesn't count here). Average Earthman 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Also, it's misspelled :) BryanG 22:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not even particularly funny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteper nom.--blue520 05:21, 16 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.