Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I am closing this MfD early due to overwhelming consensus to delete, and because I can't see any substantative debate other than mostly pile-on delete votes. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This project/organization is an attempt to fix the content of wikipedia along the lines of the religious pov's of the participants. This is an attempt to disrupt consensus finding by deliberately targetting specific deletion votes, in the hope that possible opponents will simply be outnumbered. This attempt at voter canvassing has already happened in two afd's (of Student LifeNet and Gay rights in Iraq) and a cfd (Pro-choice and pro-life celebrities) prior to the creation of this alliance. In all three cases, outsiders were canvassed in order to cast a desired vote. In the case of the cfd, this has worked: the vote was turned from an overwhelming delete to no consensus. Wikipedia has no religion, and the content of wikipedia should never be subject to what a group of followers of a certain religion deem permissible in the eyes of their religion. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 01:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Further consideration: Shanedidona has described the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia to user:Darthgriz98 as "a CAtholic organization for the preservation of conservative values, basically, CAoW is a redily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened. ... Vote Pro-Life!" [1] Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as the nominator. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 01:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep You should give this group a chance, for it has just started. --Shanedidona 01:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I, Chooserr, Agree with the above statement by Shanedidona. Chooserr 01:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per user and Aecis. Deckiller 01:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs) at (09:18, 27 December 2005)

Comment, "...outsiders were canvassed in order to cast a desired vote." I never told any of them which way to vote, indeed a few even voted against me on the matter. So with informing any user you must be prepared to be shot down. And it isn't and shouldn't be against wikipedia policy to ask fellow wikipedians to be involved in a dispute. Especially since they might have an opinion that couldn't be expressed if they were unaware that it had been nominated for deletion. Chooserr 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You have indeed been quite neutral in informing outside users of the afd's. My main beef in this is with Pitchka, who requested 57 users to stop "abortion zealots" who "don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life." This is a clear and blatant request to vote to keep the nominated categories. But although you have been quite neutral in your messages, the behaviour of you, Pitchka and Shanedidona shows a concerted effort to outnumber other voices and fix wikipedia content along pov lines. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm Catholic and pro-life but this should be under the Meta-Wiki system. Endomion 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This is no different than some Web forum up for deletion calling on its members to try to swamp the discusssion. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There are ways in which this could work, but an organization "for rallying votes" specifically violates WP:NOT a democracy. Also, a WP:POINT problem. This is needless partisanship. Xoloz 02:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per the nominator. JeremyA 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Xoloz. And I'm Catholic too.--SarekOfVulcan 03:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The group just started. I believe that it is unacceptable that it was nominated for deletion shortly after is materialisation. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment, I already voted, but let me just say that this is an NPOV wiki. Sure, there should be balanced information, but I'm afraid that this group will add POV without seeing it at first. Normally I would NEVER vote for deletion on something like this, but I just feel that there is no need for this one. Deckiller 03:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete blatant POV pushing organization that also is trying to undermine AFD and push their own overall POV. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Move or Keep Would a wikiproject be of more use? Look guys, don't WP:BITE. We don't have that many people knowledgable about specialized groups like Catholics, and there is a serious gap here in people ready and willing to work on articles of this nature. I can count a few who work now, but new blood to help clean up Catholic articles is needed. I can't say we need people here to block LGBT or whomever from speaking, but, we do need people who can work on the many stubs we have in Catholic topics. As far as a faith based group, it doesn't require a Vatican ID card to join and help. Anyone interested would be welcome, unlike some other groups here. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is simply about adding information to articles relating to catholicism, why is this "a pro-life ... organization for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion"??? Why is this "a redily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened"??? After all, rallying votes on afd's has nothing to do with what you described above. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I am a pro-life catholic, but I'm going to have to say delete, because it's too biased. There are sites for this kind of view and I encourage you to check them out, but this is an encyclopedia, not a government bill. If celebrities want to say they are prolife, they can get a wiki and get some userboxes that say they are. Although I encourage Catholics to get involved on wiki and start cleaning up articals about the reilgion and make sure nobody puts utter crap in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthgriz98 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per Xoloz. Since this is a discussion, not a vote, I hope the closing admin notes the vagueness and poor relevance of Shanedidona's (the creator of the page) argument "You should give this group a chance, for it has just started", which is the only "keep" reason I see above— Chooserr and Hollow Wilerding merely repeat it. "It has just started" doesn't say anything about the merits of this specific page, but seems to suggest that any new "alliance" page in the Wikipedia space should be kept because it's new, irrespective of merit or harmfulness. Really..? (Edit conflict: Dominick actually argues for the page, I see, though I don't understand why he thinks this "alliance" is anything to do with working on Catholic articles or expanding stubs. Its stated, single, purpose is to votestuff on AFD.) --Bishonen | talk 03:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV pushing collective. Consensus votes every are already tenuous, this basically just makes them more likely to become an organized ochlocracy. karmafist 04:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment, you have totally misunderstood the reason for the creation of this article; We can easily rally votes without it. As for an "organized ochlocracy" I think you might not know what an ochlocracy is. An ochlocracy is a government by the Mob. A mob is never organized. One person attempts to tip the car & everyone starts attempting to tip the car. They don't count heads and vote if the car should be tipped. Chooserr 04:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment, so have you.

The Catholic Alliance of wikipedia is an organization for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion. This is a pro-life group. [2]

That is the reason for its creation.--SarekOfVulcan 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

So they should start an "Association of Pro-life Wikipedians" on Wikipedia:Meta, that's what its for. Endomion 04:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I havn't looked into this group enough to vote, but I will note for those who suggest that it become a WikiProject, there is already the WikiProject Catholicism 101. Gentgeen 04:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment,

No you have. That was reverted as VANDALISM, by the creator of this page, and to the best of my knowledge was made by a USER WHO WASN'T LOGGED IN. Chooserr 05:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. Use the page history, please.--SarekOfVulcan 05:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong on all counts just on the part about the user, who turned out to be SPUI (not a Catholic), not being logged in. I came here to change it. So SarekOfVulcan, unless you know what you are talking of please don't. Chooserr 05:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote from page history, "(cur) (last) 23:42, 24 December 2005 Shanedidona (rv vandalism)" Chooserr 05:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Chooserr, you're the one that's wrong, please stop with the guessing and actually use the page history (=click on the links called "last" and look at who wrote what). The only thing SPUI added, and Shanediona reverted, was a link. All the text on the page was by Shanediona, including, in fact, practically consisting of, the sentence you call "vandalism", until you recently started editing it yourself. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I Chooserr, have moved a keep comment by glenncando from the articles page where it was placed by accident. This is Glenncando's opinion, and is quoted in full. "I am voting not to delete this organization. glenncando, catholic wikipedian."
  • Not that it matters much, but I have struck this vote. Proxy voting is not allowed on WP -- Chooserr cannot vote on behalf Glenncando. If Glenncando wishes to vote, he must do so properly here himself, complete with proper signature as well. Xoloz 19:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It would be nice to properly link to Glenncando (talk · contribs), since he didn't sign properly. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Though I'm sure this was created in good faith, the simple fact is that a group named with POV terms is going to be a breeding ground for POV pushers. --InShaneee 05:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if the group is trying to POV-push. --King of All the Franks 07:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Let's give it a try. Everybody has right for his own views. Maltesedog 09:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. - This is has nothing to do with any right to hold or express viewpoints, it has to do with an attempt to overwhelm the AfD process in support of a particular point of view. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Happy holidays to everyone =P Deckiller 12:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - POV AFD ballot-box stuffing should be discouraged in the strongest manner possible. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's early days. Avalon 13:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• The comment below was originally posted on the talk page. I have copied it over to the main vote because I feel it is extremely relevant. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• The keep votes so far:

1. Chooserr - asked to do so by Shanedidona
2. Hollow Wilerding - asked to do so by Shanedidona
3. Dominick - asked to do so by Shanedidona
4. Glenncando - asked to do so by 65.188.159.140
5. Maltesedog - asked to do so by Shanedidona
6. Avalon - asked to do so by Shanedidona
7. Activision45 - asked to do so by Shanedidona
8. Pitchka - received no notice of this mfd

Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the pattern is obvious here. Wikipedia is not a place that should have factions like this, that require recruitment of members after the group is set up. Deckiller 13:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Deckiller, speak not what you know naught of.

I will quote verbatim what I was told, "Sorry to double-post... but anyway: Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 01:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)". So as anyone can see I was not "asked to do so by Shanedidona" I was merely informed that it was up for deletion, and asked to vote. I could as easily have voted "delete" as "keep". I'm not sure if you have it in your babel, but there is one template saying "this user believes it's everyone's duty to vote". Well, I was informed of my duty...not as to say yea or nay. Chooserr 00:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - So, you are saying that Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. was not asking you to vote Keep? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - I highly doubt that it is telling people to keep, or even inspiring them to vote keep. Yes the sender seems to have a POV, but it is informing the user of the current vote first and foremost. Chooserr 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - You were circumspect in the wording of your messages to Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians asking them to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay rights in Iraq. I interpret Shanedidona's messages as clearly asking for Roman Catholic Wikipedians to support keeping this page. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

An example would be Darthgriz98's vote. Asked to vote, I believe, by one of the Catholic users. He voted. Chooserr 00:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Darthgriz98 was indeed asked by Shanedidona to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. When (s)he voted to delete the CAoW, (s)he was almost immediately asked by Shanedidona to "please reread the CAoW page and reconsider your vote." If a delete voter is asked to reconsider his/her vote, all the messages Shanedidona left can mean only one thing: please vote to keep this organization. They are not requests to simply join in the discussion, they are requests to vote keep. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 09:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have deleted this as "Not remotely compatible with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've undeleted this until consensus can be reached here. Tony's action was disrpectful to the opinions of all who have come here, and on his behalf, I apologize. While I agree with him on the lack of neutrality in this project, you don't use your administrative powers to push a content POV. karmafist 15:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  Hear hear! Let's have deliberations, not unilateralism. Particularly, the "not remotely neutral" would be invoked for all the other pages I mentioned below, too. We do not short-circuit debates that are ongoing, and we ought not even when a candidate is an unambiguous speedy delete candidate (which this one was not): once people deliberate, let them form consensus. Geogre 16:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  Well done and well said, Karmafist. - Tεxτurε 18:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom, Tony Sidaway. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This serves only to promote factionalism Pilatus 16:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Tony Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The purpose of their group, as stated, threatens NPOV, and I cannot see a positive use to the project. It would be one thing if they were solely interested in improving information about the catholic church and related topics, but this is instead about pushing values in the decisionmaking process on Wikipedia. This runs directly counter to the project goals of Wikipedia, and regardless of the result of this vote, should be deleted for those reasons. As a sidenote, wikipedia should've probably been capitalised. --Improv 17:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Tony. That being said, I do think we should let vote finish, and the more deletes we accumulate the stronger the message that the community as a whole thinks this is rubbish. But WP:NPOV is quite non-negotiable. -- SCZenz 17:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A Catholic Alliance should be dedicated to well written articles about catholicism, not about maintaing POV forks on Abortion. Serves no clear purpose focused on Accuracy or Neutrality, and can easly damage both.--Tznkai 18:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Divisive, operates against WP:NPOV, and most of the other reasons people have given above. FreplySpang (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I have serious NPOV questions about this page. Ral315 (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 20:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. the wub "?!" 20:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Everyone is entitled to thier own views. It wont hurt to have this page. --Activision45 21:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In everyday life, everyone is indeed entitled to their own views. But on wikipedia, only the neutral point of view counts. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The implementation is poor, but the sentiment is there to provide a way to talk about what needs work, part of that is rendering opinions in AfD discussions. I was not told HOW to vote, and my vote was not a simple keep. I know for a fact every human being has a PoV, nobody is born with NPoV. It is dishonest to think that a person has pure motives all the time. That being said, if it is NPoV to group together as lesbians, drug interested people, and other groups then these guys have a right to start. My suggestion was to merge not keep, and people who are Catholic often ask or solicit opinions of others, since Catholic theology is a specialized subject. Dominick ^(TALK) 21:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
      • "Rendering opinions in AfD discussions" is not part of this alliance, it is this alliance. That is it's only goal, and that's why the alliance is explicitly described as "a readily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened." That means that this alliance has only one mission: articles about pro-life groups should not be deleted, we will make sure that they won't be deleted, and we will do so by swamping deletion discussions in an attempt to outnumber others. You said that you have not been told how to vote. Yet Shanedidone asked you "to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia." Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I also want to note that by using NPOV, Wikipedia is not suggesting that it does not make one "pure" to have religious or political meanings. In many parts of life, these are a good thing -- personally I think that people who live life without some kind of value system are missing out on a big part of what it means to be human. Pure motives have nothing to do with it -- it's rather that on Wikipedia, in order to produce a good encyclopedia, we have a policy of NPOV that helps keep articles looking as they should and keeps our community as inclusive as we can expect to be. Our insistance on NPOV is not meant to be a sneer on people with a viewpoint, because, being human, most of us have viewpoints on these things too. It's just something we must insist on for the good of the project. --Improv 04:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While there is nothing wrong with people getting together and co-ordinating work, this group is an example of what WikiProjects should avoid doing. The original wording that was used to describe the group sounded like POV pushing and that should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• CommentOk, have we achieved consensus here? I think Tony was stretching, thus giving reasoning for those who voted Keep to feel they were shafted and they would be justified in recreating, but he's right, this should be deleted. karmafist 22:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The current "score" is 26 33 deletes (when counting Tony's act of deleting as a delete vote) against 7 keeps. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire. Ambi 23:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Karmafist, unless you can see unquestionable grounds for speedying it, you'd better let it run the full course, so they can't claim they didn't have time to properly defend the entry.--SarekOfVulcan 00:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Poxes on all houses: Let me explain. I am 100% against the deletionist page, the inclusionist page, the mergist page, Schoolwatch, and all other hitlist pages. I do not agree with busing voters, but there is something far more important here than that. Once an issue-oriented vote group forms, it becomes necessary to find things to vote on. Points are awarded for finding anti-Catholic sentiment. I.e. it is programmed from the start to find the issue, and if there is no issue, it will still be found. Further, it works to discourage independent thinking, and, most of all, its members are encouraged to not read the articles, not read the deliberations, not consider the arguments, but rather to save time by following the helpful link and astroturf a vote. This is the way to destroy Wikipedia. So, delete this, delete Schoolwatch, delete m:inclusionists, delete all instavote pages everywhere. I know it's tough, but people are just going to have to think for themselves and consider articles on a case by case basis. Geogre 01:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say this is worse than inclusionists or deletionists. Both groups have an agenda about how to format the encyclopedia, which they think would improve it. This page has a real-world agenda, which they want to impose on Wikipedia. Big difference! -- SCZenz 03:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's worse because it's issue oriented, and issue oriented "projects" find the issue in ever more unlikely places. (The countering systemic bias has fallen victim to that to some degree.) It's worse than the run of the mill issue oriented project, too, because it's an issue that isn't present but which they seek to impose. It's worse still because it's about only one part of one issue (abortion). So I agree that this is an extremely deletable page. I was just saying that, even if none of those things had been true, I would have been in favor of deleting on the basis of astroturf (US term for "false grassroots organizing"). Geogre 12:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While I vote delete below, I disagree that the associations on Meta should also be deleted. Unlike this group, Inclusionism/Mergism/Deletionism have no real world POV that they are trying to push, they are views on how best to build an encyclopedia (why we all are here after all), nothing more. ++Lar 14:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I can come up with any sane justification for the project in anything like it's current form.Geni 03:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all POV-pushers. Oh, we can't delete the people? OK, delete the page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promotes divisions into factions. There ought not to be a catholic alliance of wikipedia nor a protestant alliance of wikipedia nor a muslim alliance of wikipedia nor anything else of this sort. --Pierremenard 03:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre's reasoning. --Carnildo 08:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Locke Cole 10:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all groups that aim to push a specific POV through vote-stacking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or transform into a proper wikiproject. (For the record, I find it very disturbing that people think it is wrong to notify potentially interested parties that a vote is going on. The notice on my talk page was simple and did not contain any incorrect characterization of this vote. Notices to demolish the Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass should be not posted only in the basement of the planning office on Alfa Centauri, nor should people only be informed in dolphin-speak.) With apolgies to Douglas Adams — Eoghanacht ^talk 13:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment it is clear that this is a vote rally by Shanedidona is going on; on Christmas Eve, the user was placing CAoW tags on about two or three users per minute for a total of a 50-60 users. Deckiller 14:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bogdan 14:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as a Catholic m'self. Wikipedia is factionalised enough as it is (and probably doomed to become more so). Deliberate efforts to speed up the process are not welcome. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain but Comment. I have no interest in keeping or deleting this project. However, I think it was quite inappropriate to delete it while the voting was taking place, and I commend Karmafist for undeleting it (presumably only temporarily). I don't particularly like getting messages from people I don't know asking me to vote on something I've never heard of, though it doesn't send me into convulsions of fury either. But if canvassing for votes is condemned, then sending a request for help to an administrator who has previously shown himself to share one's views on such issues is perhaps a bit "iffy" as well. The validity of votes should depend on whether or not the voters are established members of the community, not on whether or not they found this page by themselves. I'm not going to vote to keep this alliance, but if I did, I would expect my vote to be treated as being absolutely as valid as anyone else's AnnH ^(talk) 15:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • • • Ann, I share your dislike of the premature deletion. I'll add, though, one point where we might disagree. Since deletion on WP is by consensus, not vote-counting, I believe the closing admin would be within his/her discretion to inquire whether a organized voting-lobby, admittedly built simply to influence these deletion debates, improperly affected the outcome. Discounting some "votes" by members of such a lobby might be in order as sound consensus-seeking process. Xoloz 19:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP The user who put this up for deletion has made anti-Christian statements on Wikipedia and has lied about me to other users. He also eavesdrops on other users talk pages and follows users around. The fact that this user is the one who nominated this section speaks volumes. Dwain 18:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't see how the nominator's behavior is relevant to the merits of deleting this page. If the nominator has acted in bad faith, there are other channels for dealing with that. Making these accusations here looks to me like an attempt to obscure the issues under discussion. And by the way, how do you figure that it's improper to read other user's talk pages? There is no expectation of privacy in Wikipedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Off-topic, but out of curiosity: where have I made anti-christian statements? (Since this is unrelated to this mfd, could you answer at my talk page?)Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 20:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - If you are Catholic and you wasted their time by voting to delete you get a nastygram on your user page. Endomion 22:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete.--Sean|Black 23:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I was raised Catholic, and this Catholic League of Decency-style attempt to organize a Catholic-POV voting bloc (as User:Shanedidona's message made clear this is, is reprehensible on so many levels. And Chooserr's excuse for his and Shanedidona's attempt to stuff this ballot box are laughably transparent. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Especially disturbing is this addition to the article, which was later deleted. ^BlankVerse 00:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bjelleklang - talk 01:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We condemn and declare it to be anathema. We declare anathema equally those who instigated this new error. - Outerlimits 02:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, har, har. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, divisive.-gadfium 02:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete They are vandalising Jewish articles making them into christian ones, they are a cause of huge fights, the sooner they grow up the better. 220.233.48.200 02:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Users without an account typically are not considered to be able to contribute to a consensus on AfD --Improv 03:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I, for one, would like to know more about which articles this happened on. -- SCZenz 14:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Bless it with the delete button. POV pushers. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- I've had a chance to look at the "Alliance" and its actions, and can find no good reason for it to exist. I'd like to suggest that users that are interested in this subject area look at the fairly small and somewhat less-than-active WikiProject Catholicism 101, and contribute to the Encyclopedia in a positive manner. Gentgeen 06:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I am a Catholic, but this group obviously isn't meant to do much. Quote from the article's page: "The Catholic Alliance of wikipedia is an wiki-organisation intended to nurture and keep wikipedia's pro-life/pro-catholic articles and categories. It is not intended to eliminate all pro-choice articles, nor intended to skew any results." Even if all the group's members promise, and manage, to uphold that bit about no skewing, the group has a mission statement that is wrong. Considering all pro-Catholic articles pro-life is a fallacy. Yes, the Catholic church is pro-life. But this is not the Catholic church's only point of belief. This is plain wrong, and I would prefer if my religion's beliefs were not oversimplified like this (and it's even more disappointing to realize that this is a group of Roman Catholics doing this). Roman Catholicism deals with other things too. If this group were just about nurturing "pro-Catholic articles and categories," it might be worth keeping, but the WikiProject should do that I imagine. But this obviously goes against the mission of the group. I would have to say that this group almost seems to want to covertly work on pro-life by tacking on the pro-Catholic part, so it can seem more useful or more NPOV than it really is. Mred64 07:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Generally, I am pro-life, but in regards to this POV-pushing club I am pro-delete --Doc ^ask? 11:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - if this is kept, I think I'll found an 'Association of LEGO fans' and push for the vast expansion of all pro LEGO articles ++Lar 14:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Terms like rallying voting, preservation of conservative values, Vote Pro-Life!, etc are statements that only politicians make! Cheers -- Szvest 15:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}
• Delete - page seems to be advocating disruption of wiki standards novacatz 16:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in accordance with process. Not during an AfD discussion. - Tεxτurε 17:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per all above comments. Extraordinary Machine 19:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- User:Getcrunk 19:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Campaigning of this type against our policy of neutrality must be stamped out ruthlessly, deleted on sight. In accordance with this I again delete this project page. There is a clear and insurmountable consensus to delete this, and even if there were not it and every project page like it would still have to be deleted because of its conflict with that policy. Please do not restore this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with Tony on this. Campaigning against neutrality has no place on Wikipedia, regardless of consensus. It is heartening that people oppose it enough to vote delete on it so much, but things so obviously against a core tenet of our community should not even come to a vote. --Improv 20:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have undeleted it. I agree that there will certainly be consensus to delete this. That is a lousy reason to not let our consensus deletion process run its course. Thanks in advance for not trying to cut short the debate another time. Nandesuka 20:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree. Thanks, Nandesuka, for restoring it, which, I think, shows more respect for the community. This is getting like a 3RR war now. I have no doubt that the final outcome will be to delete, but I think it would look better if, when that happens someone other than Tony deleted it. I'd be happy to do so, when there's general agreement. AnnH ^(talk) 21:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ballot-stuffing. If it can be re-organized as a way for Catholic Wikipedians to contribute to subjects which require specialized knowledge of Catholicism, then keep, but the current mission statement of the group suggests organized punditry. -Kyd 20:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic...not an article...not a forum...no content...unreferenced....this is a speedy based on those reasons. The best option for the creator of this is to userify it.MONGO 20:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Emphatically Strong Delete as per Jtkiefer It is only a matter of time before people of like minded POV will organize and destroy or change the democratic voting process on wikipedia. And whats wrong with that? After all God has the same POV, just ask the organizers of Catholic Alliance of wikipedia if you don't believe it. Travb 21:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV pushing. And I completely support Ann's comments. Sarah Ewart 22:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Please stop restoring this page. It must be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony, it seems that for you to keep deleting it is the administrator's equivalent of a 3RR edit war over content. I appreciate that you believe it's POV, although those who created it wouldn't agree. But one of the reasons that 3RR is allowed in cases of simple vandalism, but not in the case of POV-pushing, may be that an individual Wikipedian is not the best judge of neutrality and bias — we all think that our POV is the neutral one. You have shown, by the number of times you've deleted this page, that you feel a personal involvement, which again is why admins are not allowed to protect pages they edit, or block people they are in conflict with. As it says in the 3RR guideline, if it really needs to be done, someone else will probably do it. AnnH ^(talk) 23:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony, Please stop simultaneously violating deletion policy and trying to substitute your personal beliefs for community's consensus. Even if you are doing the "right" thing, it is insulting to every single person who has participated in this discussion. No matter how they feel about the underlying topic. The AFD will close in a few days. The article has been restored by no fewer than three administrators. Please behave. Since you feel so strongly about this issue, perhaps you should propose a new criterion for speedy deletion under which it (and similar articles that show up in the future) could be speedily deleted by any admin, and not just by one who is willing to ignore all rules. That, I suggest, would be a more productive use of your time. Nandesuka 23:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'm deleting this page because there's an obvious consensus to delete it and, even if there wasn't, a campaigning page contrary to our neutrality policy must be deleted on sight. No group should ever be permited to abuse our webspace in order to campaign against our neutrality policy. Honestly if 1000 people voted for keep I would still delete this page again because it cannot be permitted exist on WIkpiedia. Let them campaign elsewhere, but not on our webspace and not with people arguing that they have a right to do so. Let it die. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And I'm restoring it because a debate is taking place. Please stop doing that, it's not helping anything.--Sean|Black 00:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (After edit conflict) Why does it have to be deleted immediately? Why can't you let the community do the right thing on its own, as it obviously is? You're not the only user who's read WP:NPOV, or who has good judgement and common sense, Tony. Almost nobody says that page should be here; let it die with all the delete votes we can muster. -- SCZenz 00:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• It has all the delete votes it needs. It must not exist in any case. I will delete it again. Pleqse stop recrearting this page that really has no reason to exist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Musical linguist, whom I greatly respect, has recreated this page. It must still die. It must die as soon as possible. No page resembling this, a campsign against our neutrality policy, must ever be allowed to exist for one minute. Please kill this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your respect, Tony. In return, I'll say that I respect much about you, in particular your ability to work with (and vote for) people with whom you've had disagreements in the past — something I've noticed in the last few months. However, I fail to see what harm that page is doing in the course of its remaining short life. If it were a very POV article rather than project (i.e. likely to be read by the general public) and if for some reason, it couldn't be de-POVed, I could understand (though I mightn't agree with) people jumping in "for the good of Wikipedia", out of concern for the harm done when people read biased articles in an encyclopaedia that so proudly proclaims its neutrality. Yes, kill it, you might say. But how many voting results are going to be skewed between now and the time that that page is lawfully deleted? The answer is: none. That page is doing absolutely no harm other than annoying those who want it gone. I'd have no problem if you deleted because a consensus had been reached. (To my shame, I must admit that despite having been promoted over a month ago, I still haven't familiarized myself with policy as to how long a vote for deletion should go on.) However, you keep saying that you're deleting because such a page must not exist, and that you'd delete if everyone wanted to keep it (or some such words. That sounds as if you have the authority to decide what's accpetable on Wikipedia. I'm not comfortable with that. Sorry. I'm also puzzled that you'd keep doing this when I've noticed that you're far stricter than I would be about 3RR violations. Anyway, I fail to see how this is different from edit warring and violating 3RR on an article content because you think it's POV, and I also fail to see how it differs from using admin powers to get your own way. I suggest you sleep on this. Perhaps someone else will agree with you and delete it instead. You've got too closely involved at this stage, in my view. AnnH ^(talk) 00:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Annh well I opened an arbitration case against myself because clearly I cannot get myself to agree with the prevailing mood and frankly it's getting a bit riduculous. Thank you for your very respectful comments. They are greatly appreciated coming from someone I respect so much. I remain a great fan of yours, whatever the outcome. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to User:Sam Korn/Catholic Church of Wikipedia :P -- grm_wnr Esc 01:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Organizations of Wikipedians by POV are totally and utterly unacceptable. David | Talk 01:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Organized POV-pushing is definitely a no no. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam Bishop's law strikes again Raul654 01:32, 28 December 2005 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.