Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bare Naked Church


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bare Naked Church
'''From the Webmaster of BareNakedChurch.com: For the record, we did an update on the Wikipedia entry. We did not write the original article. We hope this helps clarify our purpose for your readers and is acceptable to those of you who have concerns. If not, please delete the article. Faith, Hope and Love for All, BareNakedChurch.com.''' 5 Aug 2006, 20:40 MST.

Completely non-notable Christian movement. Website has no alexa rating, very few Google hits. Was initially proded, but the tag was removed without comment. - Bootstoots 03:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Whilst google, and more so alexa, tests are poor real-world measures, we can apply WP:VAIN here, to be honest. Reads exactly like an advert. LinaMishima 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom, non notable and seems like an add, also no sources but their own cited. Pinkstarmaci 04:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree even though it's a small church it is already in the process of recieving Tax-Free status as a Not-For-Profit Church. I don't see it as an advert but more of a statement of belief. Even if you choose not to agree with the message maybe others are looking for information. How do you expect outside sources if their popularity is not exactly top-tier? If anything this article requires a heavy dose of clean-up and not much else. Epi 04:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Jesus spam. --Xrblsnggt 04:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete religioncruft. Use of "top-tier" makes me very suspicious. Danny Lilithborne 05:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and I'd just like to note for those who didn't google that the top result is an article called 'Bare Naked Church Ladies.' It's the little things. -- Vary | Talk 06:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article hasn't asserted notability at all in the several days it's been up, even though the prod tag was removed. --Natalie 15:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Brimba 20:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree. BareNakedChurch is in the process of becomeing a "real" (as in IRS approved church). But, according to the Bible a church is really where two or more meet (fellowship), to learn about Chirst (discipleship), break bread and pray (see Acts 2). This is what's happening in the BareNakedChurch Underground Churches (I know as I attend one). All the elements are even there for their web except the break bread part. And, as far as I can tell from the Bible, no church there needed an IRS endorsement. If Wikipedia is a place to share information and learn about an organization then it will be simply a shame to delete Bare Naked Church. I suspect that the peolple who want BareNakedChurch off are really anti-Christain (see the "Jesus spam" comment). So, the other sad thing is that the BareNakedChurch is also a place where Christianty is openly challenged and discussion happens. If someting as open and growing as BareNakedChurch can't be discussed and explained on Wikipedia then this place is a joke and a waste. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.206.57.110 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 August 2006.
 * Comment Firstly, might I remind you to Assume good faith. I'm sure many devout christians get annoyed and use unkind terms about the apparent mass-marketing of religion all the time. What I'm hearing of the organisation is pleasing, however wikipedia strives to verify facts with seconary sources - such as news papers, indipendant magazines and journals, a few major websites, etc. As well as helping to prove the truth of something, this also makes it clear that the subject in question is considered to be important to those outside of it. LinaMishima 23:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP! Just want to reply to Bootstoots. Since when does any movement have to be "notable" to be legitimate? That's absurd. If you knew anything about Christianity then you would know that it's roots are notorious... far from notable. In fact is was subversive... made people angry... got it's founder executed (ie. the crucfixion). And as to the "ad" comment, how is explaining the purpose of a church an ad? Your logic is obviously prejudiced. Wikipedia is a place to share knowledge and information. Leave you prejudices behind or go elsewhere. If Bare Naked Church is deleted then by God we better delete all citings for all religions and non-religions (ie athiesm / secular humanism). See where this can lead? User:Frogman61 16:11, 5 August 2006. — Possible single purpose account: Frogman61 (talk • contribs)  has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Comment then as you say, there are doubtless thousands (if not millions) of small churches the world over. But each and every one cannot be mentioned on wikipedia. Why not consier a wikichrist wiki for such information? (name an example alone, no offense intended). No one is denying the legitimacy of the movement, however there are millions of religious and secular movements going without widespread recognition. To recognise one is to say all should be recognised. LinaMishima 23:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

'''From the Webmaster of BareNakedChurch.com: For the record, we did an update on the Wikipedia entry. We did not write the original article. We hope this helps clarify our purpose for your readers and is acceptable to those of you who have concerns. If not, please delete the article. Faith, Hope and Love for All, BareNakedChurch.com.''' 5 Aug 2006, 20:40 MST.

Just another thought. I just came from the BareNakedChurch.com site. Did any of you who want to delete their article happen to notice that they have NO commercial activity on their site? They don't sell anything. Heck, they don't even ask for donations. How can being on Wikipedia be advertising for them?
 * Reply Avertisting does not have to mean commercial avertising. Advertising is defined as the promotion of products, goods and services. There is nothing to stop anyone advertising for members for a group, or advertising something free to all. LinaMishima 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Hi LinaMishima. I thought nobody was reading these things. Thanks for responding. What I'm saying is that they are new. You're not going to be able to cross verify their existence. As for the advertising discussion, again advertising is for products and services to which they are offering neither. The site and some really cool graphics are all free. I suppose if you consider Christianity and Christ a service or product they are advertising. I don't consider religious organizations either. My premise is that should someone be able to come to Wikipedia and get some general info on this church or any church? I think so, otherwise this site is the one that should be deleted. Frogman61. Oh, and why can't every church be mentioned? It's the purpose of Wikipedia... info sharing! Let's not get away from the purpose.
 * Reply The positive aspects of a church, just like those provided by any community, are indeed a service. Moreso, churches are significantly bolstered by increased awareness of their existance, giving good reason to advertise them. If something is so new that you cannot verify their existance, then it is clearly obvious that they are currently of little importance. Wikipedia also suffers from a problem called Recentism, that new things are more likely to be listed than old things, even if said new thing will be quickly forgotten about in the grand scheme of things. Wikipedia is not for information sharing, it is an encyclopedia - you may find WP:NOT informative in this matter. As such, all articles in wikipedia need to be verified. Again I suggest the idea of a christian based wikisite for all such information, since this would be far more appropriate LinaMishima 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My last shot... they must be a church. They're getting their share of censorship and persecution... even here. So much for tolerance for everyone's ideas. When will we start the PC burnings? Finally, there are zero deletes for The Church of Satan and many other so called "churches" on Wikipedia. My question, who's to say what church is legitimate or not? Isn't that what this boils down too? I'm done!
 * Reply If you look at the article Church_Of_Satan, you will note that it has many strong references and is clearly notable to many people, as it is the official organisation for a religion. We are not censoring or persecuting, indeed, you will see us repeatedly explaining our reasons - reasons, might I add, that are not just wikipedia policy, but the very premise of scientific practice, such as WP:VERIFY.We are not deciding on the legitimacy of anything, only on the appropriateness of a subject to be in wikipedia - wikipedia is not the absolute truth of everything. LinaMishima 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply If the prereq for entries is notability then Wikipedia is a contradiction. Think of the thousands of articles that are not references, cross check, notable. If the point is that Wikipedia is scientific, then no religion qualifies. This is not a scientific issue or notability issue. Just look at their freakin site. It's a NEW church. People may come here (but I doubt it) to get some info on them. Will it be allowed or not? LinaMishima, get some rest, looks a bit late/early there. This is Frogman1961.
 * Reply If there are articles that you feel cannot be verified, then by all means, see if they have been AfDed before and nominate again. Although it is polite to discuss this first on the talk page. And fyi, theology is the study of religion in a scientific manner, and history, clearly an aspect of social science, is highly influenced by religion. Stating it is "New" again does not help it's case - new things rarely have much cause to be notable. I assure you I'll look after myself well, thank you for your concern. You may find your stress levels will be helped by reading the wikipedia policies carefully. LinaMishima 03:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

'''From the Webmaster of BareNakedChurch.com: For the record, we did an update on the Wikipedia entry. We did not write the original article. We hope this helps clarify our purpose for your readers and is acceptable to those of you who have concerns. If not, please delete the article. Faith, Hope and Love for All, BareNakedChurch.com.''' 5 Aug 2006, 20:40 MST.
 * Comment Thank you for attempting to help. Check your user talk page for my thoughts on the matter. LinaMishima 03:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, delete as a non-notable religious movement, unverifiable with reliable sources. Nothing against you guys, but the article doesn't meet the guidelines. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 03:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable religious movement. There are more hits in Google referencing a calendar full of naked senior citizens. I can't even tell from the official site if this is a brick-and-mortar church or if it's just some guy with a website. That they now claim on their website that this AfD is "persecution" just gets my dander up.  Come back when you're a notable movement. eaolson 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means, Super Speedy Delete! From the Webmaster of BareNakedChurch.com: Whoa nellie (I'm saying this with a really big smile). Lighten up. PLEASE DELETE THIS ENTRY IMMEDIATELY! PLEEEEAAAASSSSE!!!!!! By all means let this come to an end. We're just having some fun and enjoying the discussion. Some of you (on both sides of the discussion) are getting a little nutso. You're taking this much too seriously. Sorry to create such a stir. Even though we really didn't post this article in the first place. I dig Wikipedia and enjoy it often. Again, sorry if we irrated anyone. It's not our intention to get anyone's dander up. We did not give permission for anyone to post this article or use our logo, please remove it. Thanks! And thanks for the discussion, it's been fun and very informative. And yes, we're going to post the entire discussion on our site. And yes, we'll call it persecution (in a goofy sort of way). And No, BareNakedChurch is much bigger than one guy on a computer. And who says it's a guy anyway (are you gender persecuting us now?... that was a joke) No worries though. Faith, Hope and Love for All, BareNakedChurch.com. 6 Aug 2006, 00:13 MST. P.S. Keep up the good stuff Wikipedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BareNakedChurch (talk • contribs).


 * This article doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, which is why we have this process. eaolson 14:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

'''From BareNakedChurch. Just did an additional update on the article in question and give permission for Wikipedia to use our logo in the article. We also completely removed this discussion from our website as to not create any additional confusion. We hope that our updates on the article lends some notability to BareNakedChurch and qualifies the article to remain on Wikipedia. Thank you for the consideration, discussion and tolerating us while we learn how to post, edit and comment. PS. Wikipedia can be addicting''' --BareNakedChurch 22:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Whatever happens, please stay around and join in! As I said on your talk page, your contributions to many other articles (especially, I suspect, those of christian interest) would be invaluable! LinaMishima 23:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC

Just doing some more browsing around wikipedia. After processing the discsuuion, why would BareNakedChurch be deleted while the Church of the SubGenius is allowed? Seems a bit hypocritical.--206.206.57.110 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * because Church of the SubGenius is rather notable and verifiable - just like Church_Of_Satan. I will admit, the subgenius article could do with some better sources, however. You would do better in this case to look for articles lacking in good sources and verifiability, rather than just articles begining with 'church' LinaMishima 22:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The church of subgenius is not a church as defined in the article on wikipedia. They're a parody. Rather Notable? Is that notable or not, or opinion? How about the list of Metropolitian churches referenced under church? I have a friend that works for them? They are loosely affiliated with a denomination (as is BareNakedChurch). I guess I'm wondering if someone wants an outside source about BareNakedChurch, shouldn't they be able to find some info here? Can it be that simple?
 * It's not a christian church, no - it's a church as in a religious gathering. Nor is it just a parody, it was founded in 1953, has a number of publications, and followers. The rather of "rather notable" was an opinion, but the notable was not - the article has the references, you are free to look at them. With respect to an outside source - wikipedia needs one itself! This has been explained several times. BareNaked Church would be better served by you spending your time talking about it to news agencies and the like - which would also give us the reference we need to be able to keep the article. LinaMishima 22:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Church of the SubGenius is a satirical postmodern parody religion..." see Church of the SubGenius entry on wikipedia.
 * Even so, the rest of the points still hold. And parodies can be quite notable - see Spitting Image, Team America, Dead Ringers, etc. LinaMishima 14:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that it is defined as a Parody religion rather than a Parody. This is important because the parody religion article states:
 * "A parody religion or mock religion is either a parody of a religion, sect or cult, or a relatively unserious religion that many people may take as being too esoteric to be classified as a "real" religion."
 * The parody religion article goes on to state that although the church of subgenius was founded as a parody, it is now considered notable movement in it's own right. LinaMishima 14:52, 9 August 2006 (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.