Wikipedia:miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia

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 of the debate was keep. Wow, what a lengthy discussion. Radiant_>|< 01:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia

I think this thing (project?) is a bad idea. In particular, I worry about sectarianism, and the inevitable coming of the Church of Jimbo Wales of the Latter-Day Saints et al. and myriad Protestant denominations. Yes, the study of theology is marvelous; yes, this "project" might facilitate it in a backhanded way, but (Roman) Catholic theology isn't the only doxy out there, and (if we have one), we'd have to allow all that anyone has the energy to work up, in the spirit of NPOV. I fail to see how multiple "model theology" workspaces furthers encyclopedia-building.

At the least, this needs community approval. I know the heirarchy here is powerful with WP as well, but a bad idea is still a bad idea. To be clear, I don't accuse the page of being offensive (although I sympathize with that view to a degree, and I'm no Catholic of any kind). I think it is unhelpful in the building of the 'pedia, and highly problematic as precedent for future, similar unhelpful projects.

Could this be userified? Exist as a webpage, or at meta? Technical reason for deletion is simply the unencyclopedic nature of the project. 205.188.116.139 16:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I was this anon while on (attempted) Wiki-break, and real life physical vacation away from my home machine. Pursuant to my new comments at the WP:CCW page, I feel I should confirm such here. Interested parties my find viewing my comments at the CCW talk page useful as well. Xoloz 20:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: This is pure bullshit parody. It doesn't belong on any serious encylopedia. Put it up on a humor site or something if you want to preserve it. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:15, 28 Nov, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Since there's plenty of humor in Wikispace, keep it. Radiant_>|< 19:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC), bishop, censor librorum and inquisitor.
  • Keep: This wry article is too good to be consigned to the deletionist trash heap. Ombudsman 03:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, delete, burn, whatever, one way or another, it's enough for me to see my work here isn't appreciated. Way to run off another good Wikipedian. -- Essjay · Talk 00:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --HappyCamper 03:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Terenceong1992 06:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as the people who actually use it want it. IMO the blasphemy should be toned down - that equating Jimbo Wales with G-d is not funny at all - even humour has its limits. Izehar 20:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not slowing the project down, or offending anyone. Johann Wolfgang 01:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: It could offend Muslims - According to Muslims associating G-d with something or someone else is the sin of shirk (association). Shirk is Islam's unforgivable sin (far error as it is put in the Koran). Now I'm not Muslim, so don't take this on my authority, but you may want to investigate this, and make such amendements as appear proper. Izehar 17:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Its in the user namespace - untouchable--Ewok Slayer 01:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: this is not in the user namespace, and neither is the user namespace untouchable. Radiant_>|< 16:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Question: Why? Izehar 17:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It began in Essjay's user space. However, it became so popular that I was moved. -- Psy guy Talk 23:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Robert T | @ | C 02:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete- This article is completely unencyclopedic and is a model of pages that were put up for speedy deletion and deleted. Such as Anonymex. That article was a landslide deletion. There is no good reason to keep this article. All of the people that said to keep it are members of it and do not want their fun spoiled. Just because you attatched "Wikipedia:" to it doesn't make it good for Wikipedia. Those in favor asserted the positive, "This article should stay." I asserted the negative, now prove your positive. You can see on my User Page I am a Catholic. Don't let this interfere with my argument.--User:Anti-Anonymex2 20:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you have seen that it isn't an article? Titoxd(?!?) 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I would agree with Anti-Anonymex. This article is pure blasphemous dross and belongs in a catalogue of pseudo-humour rather than a popular Internet encyclopedia. To retain it would be offenseive to just conscience and to the licit purpose of this website.--Thomas Aquinas 21:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I feel this page is a ridiculous parody of the actual Roman Catholic Church. Whatever your stance on the Church, Wikipedia at least pretends to be objective. And anyone who hails Jimbo needs their head examined. GreatGatsby 21:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Although it's awfully silly, we have to remember that catholic does not have to always refer to the Roman Catholic Church; see [1]. BTW, I'm a WikiSecularist; Jimbo is purely my King and Commander-in-Chief. Image:Smile.png --Merovingian 22:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Woah! User:Neutrality named me Apostle of Alaska in the Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia?! --Merovingian 00:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and offensive (and despite what some might say, it is illogical to say that it's not when others say it is). Str1977 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't matter, it's not part of the encyclopedia namespace. the wub "?!" 11:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Humor. It's not an article—it's in the Wikipedia namespace, not in the main namespace—so there is no need for it to be encyclopedic. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, it would appear that User:Thomas Aquinas has left messages for all users in Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians asking to come vote to delete this page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, so what. What's your point? Dwain 04:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The deletion pages are intended to be more about discussion and less about votes. In fact, that is the main reason why Votes for deletion was recently renamed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: to try to remove the idea that one could recruit several friends to help swing the vote and such. In general, soliciting people to come vote in a certain manner is frowned upon at best and the votes discounted at worst. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I'm breaking my Wikibreak just to vote on this matter. Remember, just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean it is wrong or shouldn't exist. The intent of this was never to offend other religious groups. It was purely for humor. Acetic Acid 22:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong KeepI am a Roman Catholic Wikipedian and I see nothing blasphemous or heretical about this page. To be completely certain, I asked my parish priest for his opinion and he liked the idea of it. It is clearly listed in the Humor category. Catholicism is a perfect analogy for the structure of Wikipedia: Jimmy Wales created the site and certain people have been named to manage the site while he looks over the site. Furthermore, CCW is encyclopedic in the humorous sense. The Latin and English "prayers" are accurate. The page was never intended to offend any Catholics. If it has, I apologize. -- Psy guy Talk 23:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I wish to amend my earlier comments. I really think people are missing the point. CCW does not mock the Roman Catholic Church. It simply has adopted its structure and applied to Wikipedia. To say that CCW is "anti-Catholic" 1) to speak falsely and 2) to miss the point. Many of the contributors to CCW are practicing Catholics or, at least, has some (positive) interest in C/c-atholicism. Since we are familiar with the structure, it is easy to apply. Please tell me a better analogy for Wikipedia than a C/c-atholic struture: both are universal, both have a hierarchy, et cetera. The page does not try to do anything truely "religious" in nature. When people take it too far, they are halted. We do not actually worship Jimmy Wales. To imply so is ridiculous. Furthermore, criticizing our morals, our devotion to the true Chruch is what is offensive. I am a practicing Roman Catholic. I take my faith VERY seriously. I respect my pope and love my God. To imply or even flat out say otherwise is offensive and I will pray for you. Remove the plank from your own eye! Also, if anyone else sees a good analogy and want to start a Lutheran, Jewish, Hindu, or Ba'al version then more power to them. -- Psy guy Talk 18:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I accept your apology, but must address the points you made. True, to accuse the contributors to this article of a mortal sin requires knowledge God alone could have; however, it is not self-righteous to oppose the act itself. There is an analogy with a fornicator, for example; should one admonish him for pre-marital sex, he would not be declaring his motives but the objective evil of what he has done. Moreover, to apply Our Lord's command against hypocrisy to this situation is inappropriate, as we (i.e., the opponents of this "article") did not canonise ourselves as great Crusaders for the Faith opposing a mass of reprobates, but as concerned and offended- at least by the presence of such work in an encyclopedia. It was not claimed that the authors of this article sincerely practiced their pseudo-religion, but that they had committed an offence against the correct one. You claimed that the Catholic Church of Wikipedia has simply applied the principles of the Catholic religion as an analogy of its nature, but this could have been done in a far less offensive fashion, such as an introductory page to this website comparing the two. You also explained that the opponents of this article have "missed the point;" once again, judging itnent is reserved to the Great Judge, Jesus Christ, and once again I cannot purport to speak for Him. Nonetheless, the effects of the CCW have proven themselves to be evil. Finally, to see nothing blasphemous about a page that mocks God and His Things is quite absurd (forgive my bluntness). The sacred is inviolable and this is a self-evident truth. To reduce it to a source of humour is reprehensible. Forgive me if I have offended you, but I msut conclude that this is a detestable article and my vote stands as unchanged.--Thomas Aquinas 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This so-called article does not belong on Wikipedia. It is extremely offensive to practicing Catholics who take their religion seriously and it is totally unencyclopedic. I would also vote to delete any other pages that makes assaults on other religions and beliefs. It also breaks the NPOV rule. It is totally offensive to me is not funny! Dwain 23:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete As a practicing Catholic, I find this a mockery and highly offensive. Beyond that, I don't see in any way how it belongs at Wikipedia. Put on a different site. --Jakes18 23:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. I also do not think the texts and prayers are humorous, in fact they are too self-glorifying. *drew 23:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete this page is unencyclopedic. It's offensive, and it doesn't serve a purpose. Aside from that it may also confuse people looking for the Catholic Church. Chooserr
    • How so? It's in the Wikipedia namespace. the wub "?!" 11:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to something a little less confusing/controversial. Good thinking, Chooserr. --Merovingian 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This will only serve to a) rile controversy (understandably so) and b) lessen Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia and source of information. Not funny, either, IMHO. Paul 00:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Life's too short. No one will lose their faith because of this bit of humor. KHM03 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I am a Catholic, and I am not in the very least offended by this. It is a part of Wikipedia humor. For those who think it is an article: it isn't: Look at the page. Titoxd(?!?) 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If anyone holds that this page should be deleted, let him be anathema! --TantalumTelluride 01:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If I may say so, that was a rather offensive quip itself, trivialising as it did a very grave pronouncement.--Thomas Aquinas 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and chill out folks - seriously if Catholicism can survive Dan Brown this won't shake it's foundations much. --Doc ask? 01:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Speedy Keep in fact, I'd close it myself if I wasn't the one who sent it to the wiki namespace. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As a Catholic, I find it offensive. I think it's so obviously offensive that I really doubt the sincerity of anyone who asks "what do you find offensive"? It doesn't matter if the participants in this Wikipedia "project" are Catholic or not. A Catholic respecting his or her own faith would not mock it. A person not of the Catholic faith who respects the religious beliefs of others and would likewise not mock it. A similar "project" based on mockery the Jewish faith or Muslim faith would not even be attempted because of the certainty of the public outcry against it. This is a double standard we are all familiar with. If the apologies for offending Catholics are genuine, then move the page off the Wikipedia. As a Wikipedia editor, I find it to be a liability for the Wikipedia to retain: this is a small safe harbor for making religious faith and in particular the Latin language prayers of the Catholic Church - silly (i.e. the alleged "hah hah" humor of the "project"). It says more about the Wikipedia and the original anonymous author of this "project" that it can possibly say about the Catholic Church. But if you think a keep it in the Wikipedia namespace vote is a big meaningful win for the first amendment, go for it. This is how the Wikipedia will choose to define itself and what subjects can find a home in the Wikipedia namespace. patsw 04:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP An an anon., I ain't eligible to vote here. Just want to point out that the word "Catholic" means "universal" or "for all", and it doesn't belong to the religious organization led by the Pope in Vatican City. And, Lighten Up ! --64.229.178.66 07:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find it slightly amusing. Chill out religious people. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 08:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The admonition "chill out" is unacceptable; holding something as sacred compels its defence uncompromisingly. And at least Catholics should be protected from a denigration of their Faith? Any member of a culture that provides laws ordering special protection for inverts and has painstakingly worked against Islam being "demonised" in the wake of recent terrorist attacks can allot just equality to Catholics.--Thomas Aquinas 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE. I agree with 205.188.116.139, Anti-Anonymex2, Thomas Aquinas, GreatGatsby, Str1977, Dwain (Pitchka), Chooserr, Paul (PaulHanson) and patsw. I understand that there is a sphere of inside humor about Wikipedia, but I think that there should be a limit to that humor in order to preserve Wikipedia's integrity as a resource to be seriously considered. This non-article stretches that humor FAR beyond the limit that I envision. Also, having relatives in the Church and now being Catholic, I'm well aware of the tendency of Catholic humor to mock God and/or the Church to a greater or lesser degree. This is the most heinous Catholic "joke" to which I have ever been exposed. Perhaps this non-article is tolerable by Wikipedia standards, but serious Catholics should cast STRONG DELETE votes in order to indicate to the supposedly-Catholic Tdxiang what blasphemy he has committed here (and what blasphemy his priest friend committed in echoing support for it). Beware, brothers and sisters in Christ, for heterodoxy abounds! John Rigali 09:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: With this issue as with any other, we have ask ourselves whether it is compatible with the primary goals of Wikipedia. I echo many statements made above:
1) Will this enterprise raise or lessen Wikipedia's standing as a credible, universal source of information?
2) Are we willing to have a plentitude of other churches, assemblies, synagogues and mosques in the name of Wikipedia? If the answer is "yes"—that we'd be willing to have a Lutheran Church - Wikipedia Synod, a Young Israel of Wikipedia, a Sangha of Wikipedia, etc. (in which, for each, certain people are equated with the deity, or with chief religious leaders such as the Chief Rabbi or Mufti or Dalai Lama, Archbishop of Canterbury, etc)—and that absolutely none of these could reasonably be predicted to offend more than a tiny minority of people, then we can allow this Catholic Church. But we have to think seriously as to whether we'd want a proliferation of these things, for if we were to allow one (i.e. this one), we would have to allow all of them in the spirit of NPOV.
Additionally, Muslims are by no means the only group which sees "associating" other deities with God as impermissible. In fact, this clearly violates a core tenet of Christianity and Judaism as well (e.g. 1st/2nd Commandments). Now, as to whether humor on this subject per se violates these principles is different, but in actuality it will without a shadow of a doubt give the appearance of impropriety to many users.
Those who wish to use/retain it could, alternatively, move it back to user space.
Let's strive for a little more respect; we shouldn't sanction "chill out secular people" comments, either. --Dpr 09:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I very much doubt if the contributors intended it to be offensive, because it's so common to make skits about Catholicism (without protest from Catholics), that people eventually stop realizing what they're doing. Just imagine if we took some Islamic prayers to Allah and rewrote them as prayers to Jimbo "for fun". Those who say that they're sorry if some people are offended, but that they intend to keep the page anyway, remind me a little of the Walrus, whom Alice originally liked better than the Carpenter because he cried while he was eating the oysters. But then she was told that he, in fact, ate more than the Carpenter. I will add that I have seen some of the other contributions from some of the members of the "Catholic Church of Wikipedia" in the last few months, and have been very impressed in some cases by the kindness and sensitivity that they showed towards Wikipedians who had personal problems or who were being attacked and humiliated. It makes me convinced that the article was not meant to be offensive, but it also makes me surprised that they can't see that it is. AnnH (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As an article that was obviously only meant as a source of humor, the only thing that is critizing is whoever decided to start an argument about this article. If you want to be insulted by something, look for it in the physical realm. --Phinnaeus • T+Σ 11:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Some people need to get a sense of humour. the wub "?!" 11:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete If you feel the need to produce parodies, create a website someplace else. Why use the name Catholic, because it fits in with an anti-Catholic notion of a monolithic medeval Church, that is unable to function in the modern world. We shouldn't be giving in to popular prejudice. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|<sup>(ŤαĿĶ)</sup>]] 12:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - learn what the word 'catholic' (small c) actually means. And I'd love to see some Islamic prayers to Allah rewritten in a comedic manner. That would be the shiznit. Proto t c 12:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Blasphemy Alert! Izehar 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Where's the small c catholic? I only see the big C. GreatGatsby 13:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't you get it? It's the catholic Church of Wikipedia, not the Catholic Church of Wikipedia. Izehar 16:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Proto t c 13:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The fact that it's Wikipedia namespace makes the lack of respect for the faith of a number of Wikipedians (including me) all the more apalling to me. --Elliskev 14:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, but Userfy or Metafy. Has caused too much conflict. Let's just get rid of it from the WP namespace. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that "userfying" or "metafying" it would be unnecessary - it's fine where it is. The only problem is the fact that it associates G-d with someone else (blasphemy). Once that is fixed, there's no reason to delete it nor move it. I can see that a lot of work has been put into this "club" (the Latin prayers), and IMO if we can have a Wikipedia:Esperanza, then we can have this. Izehar 16:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, since I already voted keep up above, but I want to expand my reasoning. First, it is not an article. There is absolutely no intent to deceive or to try to pass this as a real church. Second, it is not offensive. I am a Roman Catholic, have always been and always will be, and to say that this is a mockery of my religion is very much stretching it. My actual thoughts are that it makes me proud to see humor like this, because it tells me that at least some users respect the Catholic Church enough to try to imitate it and adulate it in good faith. Any user who tries to insinuate that I'm not a "serious Catholic" because I try to see the light side of things and not be offended by obviously good-intentioned humor is asking for trouble. Titoxd(?!?) 17:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Guettarda 18:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I find this pretty amusing (as a Catholic, it was quite entertaining to see the new versions of the traditional prayers), and I'm impressed with the amount of work put into the Latin translations. But I really think this is more appropriate for a user space; I think the comparison to the Anonymex deletion is accurate. Hopefully, if the decision is made to delete it, someone will take the effort to move it into their user space for our continued enjoyment. JerryOrr 19:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the majority vote so far, is to keep it (I was lucky and voted for the winning side). Izehar 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Izehar! You could help with the construction on the Wiki Mount at Wikipedia: Jewish Temple of Wikipedia it's going to be a real guffaw!!! Plank 20:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is blasphemous, as is the Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia. No religious denomination or sect should be put under this much scrutiny or disrespect. I expect more from an encyclopedia with a great reputation. Even me, one who has openly spoke against Catholicism and its Dogma, can understand that this is clearly unacceptable. If I am correct, with my vote it is Delete: 19, to Keep and Rename: 24. Эрон Кинней 01:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG NEUTRAL. Unimportant, in any case. There are better uses of our time. -- BRIAN0918  01:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It can't be unencyclopedic; it's not an encyclopedia article! --Wikiacc (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The page might as well just be relabeled: "Catholics are idiots and their religion is a crock" The fact that the page still exists and many users think nothing of it speaks volumes about wikipedia. I thought wikipedia was edited by thoughtful adults - not so sure any longer. Goodandevil 01:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's humor, and this would be obvious to any reader. If it sets a precedent for more silly jokes, don't worry about it - WP is not paper and you don't have to ever look at them. I've seen more offensive Catholic jokes on Saturday Night Live. Do you want to delete them, too? Deco 04:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It is unencyclopedical. --Adam1213 Talk + 08:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment It doesn't need to be encyclopedical. It's in the Wikipedia namespace. Proto t c 13:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't believe one person should have the ultimate power Jimbo has, even though he deserves it - I certainly don't believe he should be worshipped as god! (no offense) Dmn 14:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with this more than anything. Wikipedians need to lighten up on this Jimbo man, I just learned his user name by heart like a week ago. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - humour in the WikiSpace. Come on, lighten up. --Celestianpower hablamé 16:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 'Twere it not for the great Jimbo and the prayers recorded therein, I would surely have yielded me to the Satanic Trinity, and left long ago. --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this. Harmless humor, not interfering with the article namespace; I note that we've had similar parodies around for as long as I can remember. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep good humour, not in main namespace. --pgk(talk) 17:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, mostly harmless. Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Normally I wouldn't comment on someone else's vote, but I think you are a bit mistaken here. It is harmful. People are really offended and it doesn't do much for Wikipedia on the whole. Why do we need to have it in the Wikipedia namespace? We should be looking for ways to unify the WP community, and this certianly does no such thing (as evidenced by this MfD, various talk page discussion, and personal emails). --LV (Dark Mark) 17:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    Well, of course some people will be offended. There's a great deal of "offensive" content in the Wikipedia: namespace—much of BJAODN, for a start. Certainly the wild accusations of blasphemy coming from some of the commenters above make me less inclined to consider their objections to be serious ones.
    More to the point, I do not believe that this particular page was intended to give offense to anyone; I would view it more as emulation than as mockery. It may be appropriate to userfy it in the interests of general harmony; but this is a decision to be made by the participants at their leisure, rather than one to be enforced from the outside. Kirill Lokshin 20:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    I know, I get it. For a long time, I was a very active member of CCW, but just couldn't, in good faith (no pun intended), continue to be a member. I don't think it a terrible thing to have around, but just perhaps not on the Wikipedia namespace. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per EliasAlucard, yes it is a harmless organization, but WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH anything the encyclopedia is aiming for. I think it is a waste of time, and most likely, may divert Wikipedians from editting the encyclopedia itself. I have respect for Essjay though, I truly look up to him. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Abstain changing vote, as this article is not hurting the encyclopedia - but it sure is hell isn't helping either. I still don't see the reason for it. May be funny to some people (but not me) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Addendum I believe this is obsessive cumpulsive. I mean, A church in an encyclopedia? WtF? Out time can be used much more wisely εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep not in main space, I have enjoyed this bit of humour a number of times and congratulated the author of the WikiSerenity Prayer - a particulary good innocent parody. Alf melmac 17:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. None of us are paid to edit here, so making the experience fun is a good reward. CCW is a bit of fun. It makes everybody a bit happier. It makes people feeling wikistressed less stressed because they know there are fun people around. Just because we're wikinerds doesn't make us wikiboring. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "It makes everybody a bit happier"? Have you ever read this debate or others surrounding this page? As an Esperanzian, I would think you wouldn't want to keep this divisive material around. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Congratulations!! Look what you did!. the wub "?!" 19:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a little over-dramatic, dontcha think? He said himself that he would be fine with having this nominated for deletion, and that he would be fine moving it into Meta or back into his user space. It might actually be something else bothering him. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. As an Esperanzian, I want what makes people happy, my Lord. As an atheist I abhor religion in all its forms. As a human being I want Essjay to stay. As a Wikipedian, I want to enjoy myself here. As an ordinary inconsistent person I don't demand consistency of those around me. As a free person I don't want to change my opinions of what everybody should believe compared to what everybody does believe. And as someone voting here I want to have the right to say what I feel regardless of what others say. Take your pick. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I hate to be a dickhead, but I went to your userpage and you're a living, breathing cliche. This has nothing at all to do with the voting, I just had to air that. It's not a personal attack at all, just an observation. (I'm referring to the combination of vegetarian, atheist, and far-left politics). GreatGatsby 21:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I too would like Essjay to stay. He is an unmatchable editor. His loss will be felt throughout Wikipedia. However, he said himself that he would be happy to move it to Meta. You most certainly have the right to vote however you please, but do not say this is universally accepted, because it obviously isn't. There are other ways of making people happy than by offending another large part of the community. And don't worry, I know I'm not making any friends here. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Guys, stop, I can't take having this tear others apart as well. Just let it go. -- Essjay · Talk 20:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I ask all here please to note my new comments above (I nom.'ed this), and perhaps see the CCW talk for comments also. A message for Essjay is at his talk if he wishes to see it. Xoloz 21:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

All right, out of all 53 votes, 31 are keep votes; we've got roughly 59% - so obviously thus far, WP:CCW is not going anywhere. Izehar 20:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. (edit conflict) This was meant as a humour piece originally in the userspace of a former Wikipedian who dedicated a large chunk of his time to maintaining humour and reducing the stress of others, and now in the Wikipedia: space. I had a long rambling speech already typed out here, but decided to delete it in the interests of civility. Suffice it to say, Essjay's leaving is not a factor to my Keep vote, though it was a factor in my reading this MfD. --Deathphoenix 20:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. Delete highly erudite humor because thin skinned people take offense? And Dr.Ang. - inverts? Please. -EDM 20:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Erudite? Please. GreatGatsby 21:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not so much for the offensiveness (although it is offensive), but for the lack of erudition. Slac speak up! 21:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Harmless joke. I can see it becoming out of date soon enough, as Essjay was the driving force behind it. If you don't like something in the Wikipedia namespace, ignore it. You don't need to police it for something that may offend. If some Wikipedians like it, why should others try to stop them? I think it's actually quite a useful resource -- here are many people interested in Catholicism (in both its Roman and other forms) who could give advice on Church-related issues. It is this behaviour as a whole (not necessarily this specific case, but in general) that causes many, many users to leave: disrespect for their work and effort. [[Sam Korn]] 22:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong userify. Let's see, now that I catched your attentio (grin). This is not a voting, it's about the arguments. So here's my argument, why can't this be moved back to userspace? The problem here is that it's outside the personal space of a wikipedian, it's on Wikipedia namespace itself. For example, some people are bothered by mexicans, but I don't think anyone will object me mentioning it on my userpage. Some people are offended by cursing, but I reckon many userpages have it are are not subjected to deletion. So, this is a personal view of a wikipedian, why can't he put it back on his userspace so it becomes quite clear it's his personal attempt at humor. This is similar to the "extreme support" fad that happened on RFA a few months back. It's clearly not an article, it should not go into main space, people have qualms on it being on wikipedia namespace , but I see no arguments for not keeping it at userspace. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    FWIW, there's 30+ people in this, so I have something against userfying it. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Remember that so far the majority vote is to keep it where it is. Izehar 00:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • FWIW, keep -- Francs2000 00:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I don't see any policy violation, and it contributes to the wikipedia community in a positive fashion. Voyager640 01:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, basically completely unimportant, does nothing for the encyclopedia. Sure it doesn't break rules or policies, but it serves no purpose. Quentin Pierce 01:36, 30 November 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.