Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Solana Antichrist allegations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. —Seselwa 22:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • A truly insane article, unencyclopedic, pandering to fundamentalists, POV. What more to say? —Seselwa 22:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Javier Solana is a pretty short article, and everything about him should be put there. at the moment there is no link between that and this article, so it would seem the consent is not to include any info about it. Solana himself stated monday "some American neoconservatives" are hostile to the constitution because it marked "a new rise in Europe's power." [1] may be the basis of a beast free discussion of this subject, --SqueakBox 00:33, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE!!! I'm offended - are Europeans soooo special that they get to have the Antichrist? Obviously the Antichrist will be an American. Also, despite the concededly insane premise, the article strikes me as rather NPOV - merely presenting a theory to which some hold, rather than a declaration of certain truth. -- 8^D gab 00:36, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
  • Delete --Golbez 04:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. The reason it is NPOV is because nobody who even thinks it might be a possibility that Solana is the antichrist has contributed (there were some reverted edits) so of course it is NPOV, --SqueakBox 00:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Wikipedia is not a message board for fundamentalist Christian conspiracy theories. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 05:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete On second thought this is not a research paper. WP:What Wikipedia is not.--Cool Cat My Talk 06:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Megan1967 07:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While even dribbling lunatic theories are worthy of encyclopedia articles if there are sufficient dribbling lunatics to believe them (e.g. Flat Earth Society), this one would appear to have rather a relative lack of adherents. Average Earthman 09:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 09:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete if we can. Some crackpot. And I second the "soapbox" comment. I don't know how else to describe what's so wrong with this, but just... just... get it away from me! Looks like a looney, I hope he never ascends to control the stuff it says he will. Oh, and, again, interesting Armageddon stuff, but WP:WWIN#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Master Thief Garrett 03:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could this not be rewritten into a less-paranoid, less-insane non-rant about the (admittedly insane) belief that Javier Solana is the Antichrist? A Man In Black 10:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Isn't that like writing an article about how many believe there was a second JFK gunman? You see my point. Ideally this wouldn't exist even when rewritten. Him being called the Antichrist is a matter of opinion (although not as narrow and reduced as a truly POV article by one or two people is) but similarly it's potentially a crysal-ball article. By the time we truly find out if he's the Antichrist or not, the world will have fallen into chaos as the Four Horsemen ride across the battlefields etc. by which point Wikipedia won't exactly be very important any more. Or if he dies first. Whichever. Master Thief Garrett 12:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm. I was considering the possibility that this was a widespread phenomenon (notable in the same way that, say, Timecube is), but after some investigation, it really seems to be a couple of wackos. Delete. A Man In Black 07:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • One other possibility is to merge into a "List of famous people whose names add up to 666" or some such thing. Individually, 50+ famous Jewish-descended people could have their names coincidentally add up to 666, and I don't think each and every one deserves his (or her, let's not be sexist here, Jesus might return as a Jessica!) own article. Heck, people *still* think Kissinger's the Antichrist, and yet the Bible says that the Antichrist will "emerge", indicating that before that point he is an unknown/non-noteworthy. Therefore, I don't know that *this* person has a chance any more than poor Kissinger does... but I digress... Master Thief Garrett 12:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Uggh, utter rubbish, POV and just bad use of the encylopedia. Goferwiki 23:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I think what some people have been missing is that the beast believers aren't interested in this article; they are interested in Javier Solana, --SqueakBox 04:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Are we going to have Antichrist Allegations pages for all prominent figures who have been called the Antichrist by cranks? Firebug 07:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reference to actually how many people believe this theory, original research. I am transwikiing this to Conwiki. silsor 09:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; wow. — Davenbelle 18:12, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep -- the article was meant as a neutral portrayal of an insane belief, and it can do that job still. I don't see how this belief is more insane than, say, the belief that an archangel dictated both the book of Mormon and the Qur'an, that the pope is infallible, or that wafers turn into Jesus' flesh during mass, beliefs that are all duly portrayed on Wikipedia. The question is not, is the belief insane, but is it notable. And the standard of sufficient notability on Wikipedia seems to be GNAA. dab (ᛏ) 06:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that the examples you mentioned are believed by a significant number of people and are the doctrine of many ancient churches. I don't understand why you make this flawed comparison. —Seselwa 13:25, 28 Apr 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.