User talk:Phylotheology

I have posted the following on your article at Phylotheology: "This page has been flagged for speedy deletion twice (for two separate reasons, both valid) in the space of less than an hour. The subject does not occur in Google's listing, and the article claims that it was invented... today. As there is one contributing editor, I strongly suspect that this is a combination of spam, nonsense and irrelevant material about an insignificant subject (if, indeed, it exists at all). I'm guessing the one author is the Mark Desilets mentioned in the article." Please either justify why the subject is important or desist from editing it. Also, please note that as the template itself mentions, you are not to remove the any templates relating to meeting criteria for speedy deletion from your own page. Angus Lepper 13:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Angus Lepper. While the subject may not appear in Google's listings, this is understandable considering this idea for 'Phylotheology' had just begun.

We are clearly in the midst of trying to get something started. Perhaps I should have waited a while before writing this Wiki, but felt Wiki would be a good launching pad for this idea. We also have setup a website for the subject, www.phylotheology.com and it is not our intentions to spam Wikipedia in any way.