Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelonatheosism


 * 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.

Chelonatheosism
The result was   Speedy Delete per G3, and possibly G1. Talk Islander 10:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * - redirect to the above

Contested prod. The author claims this is his religion, but makes no claim of a significant following, at least significant enough to warrant third-party coverage. The article was also tagged speedy G1, but I don't think this criterion applies. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * delete: WP:NOT and WP:HOAX. Speedy delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: patent nonsense from apparent single-purpose account; probably related to this, which was speedy deleted.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Google hits only on Wikipedia. Agree with those above, this is a hoax. I'd support the G1. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to the G1 criterion, one must make a distinction between an unsalvageably incoherent text and an unsalvageably incoherent subject. Wikipedia does have articles on crackpot topics when they are notable enough. Here, I don't see that the text itself is incoherent, it is what it describes that is incoherent. If this is a blatant hoax, then it is G3 that applies. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete stupid religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy this hoax, G3. RockManQ (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. It's already been speedied twice per G1 and G3. andy (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, barring objection from the Turtle God. No evidence of notability. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.; Wikipedia is not for religions made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2008 (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.