Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the tree

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 was delete. Picaroon (t) 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church of the tree

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Church of the tree
Church of the tree (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Apparently a hoax. I can't find anything on Google, Google news, etc., to bear out any of these claims, searching on a number of keywords including the location. Also reads like a very unreligious religion... Accounting4Taste 00:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I, too, am unable to find anything related on Google, and it just kind of reads like a hoax. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 00:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as Hoax TonyBallioni 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. I also found nothing with Google. PrimeHunter 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete. Here's a link assholes: http://hs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4440679812 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkstancil (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC) — Clarkstancil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete per Clarkstancil - a high school facebook group is WP:NOT. Hal peridol 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • facebook as a source... funnyJJJ999 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete: This is very much a legitimate religion. As a student in Jasper, where the Church is located, I have observed an extremely tight collective of followers exhibit by way of actions the teachings of the Tree and practice its pillars ascetically with excruciating attention to detail. Deletion would be a front of the authority of the Tree. Shnoobies 02:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

— Shnoobies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete, and stop making sockpuppets, we're not that easily fooled. --Dhartung | Talk 02:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So just because we don't have our own website or news articles we're not a ligitamate religious sect? Facebook is how we members communicate outside of our personal get-togethers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkstancil (talk • contribs) 02:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. No notability, no ghits, no information other than Facebook - which is about as unreliable as it gets. To Clarkstancil, or whatever you're calling yourself at this moment, calling us "assholes" (your words, not mine) will not only fail to win you any converts, it will fail to change our minds. If you want to change our minds, look for reliable sources that verifiably demonstrate notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be a hoax. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete sounds like a hoax, but even if not, a church with 40 members wouldn't be notable enough for an article anyway. Besides, no reliable sources = no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. To the creator(s) of this article: Please stop making personal attacks, such as calling people "assholes". szyslak 11:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Wiki not being for 'hilarious' stuff made up in school, sole reference Gheybook, etc. tomasz. 11:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per eveything above. Katiebug's mom is saying, "Oh, what has my little , Katiebug up to now?" Mandsford 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the obvious: it's a hoax. Should we put it in WP:BJAODN or just delete it? And, sockpuppet creator: it's pretty obvious this article's a hoax, so stop trying to convince us that deleting this article will be "taking front to the authority of the tree" or insulting people. --Slarti (1992) 20:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not all that funny, really - I wouldn't even give it grace to immortalize in BJAODN. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's why I asked. --Slarti (1992) 21:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that the AfD message was removed by TCrunk; I've just returned it. And I agree, this isn't funny enough for BJAODN. Accounting4Taste 00:51, 17 October 2007 (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.