Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concrete Religion

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. dbenbenn | talk 02:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete Religion

Joke. Thue | talk 21:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Article contains the text "To any administrators who think that this is vandalism, it is not, and people really believe this. Please do not delete this page." However, the god of this religion is the "Great Concrete Pack-Mule"; "Concrete Pack-Mule" has as many (0) web or usenets as you'd (0) expect (0). It is not a notable joke. Delete it, sigh. Samaritan 22:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know if "people really believe this" but I sure as hell believe this should be deleted. Phils 22:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 00:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sc147 00:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Jpo 00:49, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
• This page should not be deleted. How would Christians or Jews like it if we deleted their page? Also, this page said that this a new religion! Why would it be on Google yet? It apparently has been kept quiet until now because of fear of people not accepting it as a religion. I certainly accept Christianity and Judaism and all the others, but I don't believe in them. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean everyone doesn't!!! You need to leave this page on because some people do believe in a Great-Concrete-Pack-Mule being the god. You say that it is unbelievable, but its only as unbelieveable as the Christian "God", or the Egyptian Gods, or whatever religion YOU are. i mean, how outrageous is it that "God" created everything? I have a hard time believing that, and scientific facts have an easy time of backing me up. All religions have a beginning, most back in the so called "BC" times, but this one was created more recently. To end, why don't you try thinking about all the crazily insane stuff in YOUR religion, and then you will see that it is not a good thing to do to criticise other people's religions. unsigned comment by anonymous user:24.18.105.189
  • Anonymous user 216.177.244.30 later signed his/her IP to this comment in addition to the vote below and a comment made in the middle of the signed comment by user:Superuser840
• Hear, hear! unsigned comment by user:Superuser840 who voted below.
• Delete and strongly consider blocking user for disrupting this page with that above rant. - Lucky 6.9 02:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As a determined "Great Concrete Pack-Mule" atheist I'm determined to rob this pernicious doctrine of unwarranted publicity, lest it make converts. Oh, and, utterly non-notable, no Google hits, why can't we speedy-delete things like this? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:16, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because the risk of error is far too high if editors think that "It's stuff that I've never heard of and that seems a bit wacky." is a valid speedy deletion criterion. I rescued no-self from speedy deletion today, for example. And that's without such expanded CSD criteria. Uncle G 18:25, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
  • See also the Climate theory nomination above. Rossami (talk)
• Delete, not notable - zero Google hits, original essay/research. Megan1967 03:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Man, I am sick of people promoting their brand new "religion" or "philosophy" in wikiepdia, and acting like we're the damn Pharisees for deleting it. Alright pal, I'll make fun of your religious beliefs all I want, and in return you can make fun of mine. Good luck finding any. Delete. -R. fiend 07:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete this. We haven't discovered Wikipedia until recently, and we still need time to put it all online completely. -A loyal follower unsigned comment by anonymous user:216.177.244.30. Comment was somehow deleted from the thread. Now restored.
• Save. We don't have enough followers to make this big yet, and Wikipedia is our only way of getting it online without having to pay too much money (we are low on funds). -User: Superuser840 07:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • new user whose only contributions so far are to this discussion. Comment was later edited by anon user:216.177.244.30
• Delete. Boy, is that the wrong argument. In the unfortunate event that your new religion becomes notable rather than remaining in very well-deserved obscurity, then Wikipedia will document it, just like many other religions which don't deserve any more notability than yours does, but regrettably have it. Meanwhile, find some other way to publicize it. --BM 17:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• SAVE THIS SITE! All of your arguments against my religion are irrelevant! Save THis site!216.177.244.30
• Delete. You seem to be saying that Wikipedia should give you free web space to publicize your idea because you don't want to pay for your own... and not only that, but the idea should be put in an encyclopedia article. That, of course, makes no sense at all. May I suggest some more viable ways to get free publicity:
  • Get some actually free web space at someplace like Tripod, and put it there
  • Post it on a Wiki that's not an encyclopedia, and which will accept your article, like JnanaBase
  • Participate in online discussion boards, and put a link to your site in your sig
  • Stand on street corners and shout your idea at people
    • Tried and true methods. RSpeer 18:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I think that we should save this site. After all, even if these people did just want to avoid spending money on a site, what problem do you have with their religion staying on Wikipedia? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to compile all human knowledge? I vote save172.157.229.183
  • No, Wikipedia isn't supposed to compile all human knowledge. What gave you that idea? Most of human knowledge is not worth compiling. RSpeer 19:45, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, by its own admission, it is not notable but only trying to become so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any reason why this should not be speedy deleted as patent nonsense? -- The Anome 17:50, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 04:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Alright. If it's a real religion (which I cannot possibly fathom), then ther should be more than a paragraph of information on it, and thus needs to be deleted until better information is obtained. If it is simply a joke (as I would be tempted to think of as FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more likely), we need to get rid of it. Thus, delete this. -- Cabhan 05:20, 15 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.