Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil Atheist Conspiracy

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. -Doc 21:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Atheist Conspiracy

article seems to be an inside joke from a newsgroup SnaX 18:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is that sort of thing, but it does have its own website, which isn't much of a reason to keep it, though. I don't care that much.Tuesday42 23:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Despite an upwards of 50,000 google hits, I don't think this material is noteworthy in its own right. A Usenet bulletin (or whatever)? Come on. Perhaps it's popular enough to be appended to Internet phenomenon? Rashad9607 19:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Tenative Keep: In the vein of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Played a large part in the history of alt.atheism. Ironically, the very deletion nomination is in accordance with the "EAC does not exist" policy of the site. -Interested2 01:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Which two articles? check WP:WEB to make sure they're relevant. to me, this article seems like an inside joke that escaped the rules because it was created a couple years ago. I don't think this article would make it in if it was created today. SnaX 02:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. EAC doesn't even begin to approach the popularity of Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster. It fails WP:WEB. Interested2 says it's been mentioned in at least two articles. Where are they? I see no evidence that EAC "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself," or that it fulfills either of the other 2 sufficient criteria of WP:WEB. Rohirok 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My bad. Can only find a mention on alt.atheism. Could have sworn I saw it in another article, but I can't find that now. I still say keep, but good call. -Interested2 10:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So you don't dispute that this fails WP:WEB? Are you voting keep because you disagree with that standard? Rohirok 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete gosh this article is old :( [1] 271 unique hits, low for an Internet thing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The Evil Atheist Conspiracy is alive and well. If you delete it now, it will be going back in. EAC exists - it was originally a joke, but has been taken over by like-minded atheists to whom nothing is sacred in the battle against christianity. It stays. --The Atheist Go check our website, the EAC is real, right now! [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.89.170.252 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC).
    • Comment: EAC falls under Wikipedia policy concerning articles about web content. There are three criteria for inclusion, and fulfillment of any one of these would be sufficient to establish EAC's notability, and would therefore support your vote for keeping. Which of the three criteria do you contend EAC meets? If it does not meet any, it ought to be deleted. Rohirok 02:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We could move this to Internet phenomenon per Rashad9607, I suppose. I understand that this article was only made for the joke, but do we have an article dealing with the suspicions of a secular movement that are actually espoused by some conservative religious figures? Or am I thinking too hard, and should be moving to delete? -Umdunno 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'll search for that.Tuesday42 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I don't think there is one.Tuesday42 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks to me like it whiffs on all three criteria under the notability standard, and this is something probably best covered as a section in the article for the newsgroup. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If it does in fact fail the three, then that's that. I concur with Mr. Darcy; Delete. Rashad9607 12:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Why delete it? Webspace is cheap. An article deserves to be on this site even if it interests only one user.User:Torish
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.