Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Divine Lotus


 * 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. PeaceNT 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Church of the Divine Lotus

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: db-nocontent. This is not a valid speedy reason. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 06:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the page to be a stub page. I would love to hear feedback as to what I could do to make this article more appropriate for you.

Msheekhah 06:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Rev. Mark Anthony Collins
 * Delete It's a religion that is less than two years old, and google only turns up blog stuff and first party sources. No reliable sources, no verifiability, no notability: the unholy trinity of deletion. Deranged bulbasaur 07:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Deranged bulbasaur. Maybe have another look at it in 2000 years or so. Mmoneypenny 09:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non notable pseudo-religion. Plenty of Google hits, but they are all user-submitted content and the like- appears that the members/founders are trying to get as much publicity as they can. J Milburn 10:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Seem to have declared themselves a church as some sort of tax avoidance scheme. BTLizard 10:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The results of my efforts to find sources are the same as Deranged bulbasaur's and J Milburn's. The creators of this purported religion, one of whom  (the creator of this article) is signing xyrself as, have written about it on various self-submission web sites.  Unlike those web sites, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  It is an encyclopaedia.  I cannot find anything at all written about this purported religion that isn't written by its creators.  There is zero documentation from independent sources.  The PNC is not satisfied.  Delete. Uncle G 10:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete religioncruft. JuJube 18:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambitious movement, but not notable.  Interesting how, in an attempt to avoid labels, they actually applied one. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm very inclusive about groups that that call themselves a religion, as long as there's some evidence for actual existence--but this has none at all.DGG 04:59, 24 May 2007 (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.