Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catechism, a White Nationalism Ideology

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August &#9742; 04:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Catechism, a White Nationalism Ideology
Nonsensical, excessive rant about some kind of racism. Several Times 19:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC) --- (Author's comment). I wrote my name in full in a message which has got lost in the shuffle. My full real name is also in my registration. DELETE those who wish to delete my message, since they are racists, suppressors of freedom of speech, enemies of and within the Republic, which must be save from them.
 * Delete &mdash; skinhead cruft. &mdash; RJH 19:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm holding my tongue on this one. - Lucky 6.9 19:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * [author's response] Who are these defamers of the American citizens who stand for the constiution and the Republic. Who are these racists against Whites, whom they do not want to preserve themselves? Who are these parasites of America who want to trample upon the liberty of the citizens? Who are these censors of freedom of speech? Be they identified by name and address so that they can be brought to justice. They deserve to be charged with suppression of American rights and provisions which are spelled out in the Constitutions. Come into the open, you mischievous and treacherous rabble. (I have copies of what i wrote. So, don't bother ALTERING my contents, which will stand as rightful before any court of law.) (comment by User:69.22.200.170)
 * Yada-yada. Next time read the legal terms before you submit, genius.
 * Delete personal manifesto. Gazpacho 20:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It is hilarious that the anonoymous author demands the names and addresses of those who want to delete his personal manifesto. Ground Zero 20:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment It is nonsense, though arguably not nonsense; it is a rant; it is posse comitatus tinfoil hattery. But if it is a real movement with any more than a handful of adherents it probably ought to have its very own article just like the White Aryan Resistance and the Church of Jesus Christ Christian and oh so many others, no? -EDM 21:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that a movement, even a small one, should have an article. This article provides no evidence of any movement beyond that occurring when the author sits on the toilet. The artile does not even refer to a movement, but rather to an "ideology", which kind of supports Gazpacho's point that it is a personal manifesto. The fact that the author made ridiculous threats of legal action, and has already made aggressive and inappropriate edits to the article tells me that this is not someone we want around. Will anyone be allowed to edit this article to NPOV it or bring it up to Wikipeida standard? Or will this guy just keep reverting and blustering about? Ground Zero 21:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I just used a weeks worth of self control not saying anything but no google hits related, and unencyclopedic rant.   &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 21:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete DJ Clayworth 21:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as above The Son of Oink 22:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

If you were American citizens, you would want to join in this freedom movement; you are on the other side, children of the trators of the Constitution, from Wilson to Bush, the servant of a foreign power, the cohort of those who are striving to make the American cizens servants of others. Delete yourselves from this Land! ---
 * You're all correct, of course. Googling the supposed author's name (helpfully provided on the article's Talk page) turns up a bunch of neo-Nazi rants, but nothing to suggest that "Catechism" is a notable movement worthy of an article. Delete OR, nn. -EDM 21:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[Author:] Deletion, placing on the Index, and burning at the stake for good measure, have been methods of self-defense. You are aliens to the Constitution and the rights of the citizens, part of the scourge which has been afflicting the United States. Do what you must but we shall meet again. [Author:] Ground Zero was the result of a plot by three parties, none of which involved American Whites. Treason from here and treason from there.....Ah, but I am going off on a tanget.... you still have to understand a word of anything I wrote in the article. --- [Author:} You are a nice bunch of CENSORS, racists, defamators, ostracizers, anti White-Gentiles, violators of the right of free speech, cry-babies, intruders in the Republic of the USA, not to mention destitute in reading comprehension and deficient in self-knowledge. You could not deal with any of my tenets for two minutes; you are the mere defenders of your dogmas and primitive orthodoxy.
 * I'm starting to wonder if this guy's a troll. No-one could be this wacko and still know how to use a computer. Ground Zero 22:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are so many things that can be said about that remark, but I'll just settle on the obvious, impervious even to whatever this Author's nutty logic is, Wikepedia is an international encyclopedia.  &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 22:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, ban user for threatening behaviour. ('Do what you must but we shall meet again') Proto t c 22:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; also delete user from this land. tregoweth  23:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable hate-group vanity. Does not meet WP:HateGroup. 68.17.138.197 23:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC).
 * Delete original "research," and perhaps recommend a good therapist for the author. Nandesuka 00:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. as above, frightening how a computer can be used for hate. Nelgallan 00:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. To the author: Come find me in Idaho. :P -Hmib 01:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity.  Billbrock 01:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey! I resemble that remark! -EDM
 * Do I smell a troll? &mdash; RJH


 * Delete as non-notable, and censure author for trying to disrupt the process. Haikupoet 03:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongest Possible Delete and Ban User : This article is nn. Granted, I find the author's ideology abhorrent, but if he started an article about an ACTUAL and NOTABLE hate group, and followed the rules of Wikipedia (NPOV, civility, no legal threats, etc.), he'd have as much of a right as anyone else on here to add to our project. However, in this vfd alone, he's broken several Wikipedia Policies on numerous occasions. If he sockpuppets and continues this kind of behavior, he should be banned again. Maybe eventually he'll eschew his hateful nonsense and learn to play nice with others. Karmafist 04:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: I'm worried about the immediate impact this might have on wikipedia. A minute passes that this crap stays on wiki, the more likelihood that someone will take offense and sue wikipedia? I'm not a lawyer (tm) and cannot say with authority what would happen then, but are we not responsible at least partly for the contents that even anon vandals place on it? It's blatantly obvious that this anon vandal's agenda is racism, so there should, in theory, be no discussion about its validity, since it IS racism and not just TALKING ABOUT racism, and the last time I checked, racism is illegal. I suggest that we at least quarantine this article first and make it inacessible or something. This might be something I wanna bring up at the vfd reform too. -Hmib 05:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We can't be sued, and it is in no way illegal, however this kind of hate rant does give Wikipedia a bad name.  &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 05:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't know what country you're in, Hmib, but in the USA racism is definitely legal. at least insofar as what you say or write. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's legal? Hm... Land of the free eh? Perhaps a bit too free... next the right to murder would also be included in the definition of free... Bah but I digress. As long as wikipedia isn't in danger then we have all the time we want to deal with this nuthead. It's pretty amusing. -Hmib 06:46, 13 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.