Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lavaeth 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 08:14Z 

Lavaeth Church

 * — (View AfD)

contested speedy/prod and recreation of speedied page. WP:OR or creative writing: only ghit is an okcupid.com self-test; not sure if it's WP:HOAX, but could be WP:NFT DMacks 17:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC) If you cannot demonstrate via previously published material that this sect actually exists, then Wikipedia is not the place to give a brief outline of its belief system. Try another website like myspace, or Wikia. If and when this belief system catches on and is written about in reliable sources, then this article can be re-created. Delete without prejudice ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 20:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the speedy and the prod. First of all; speedy or prod, please pick one and don't use both.  I didn't think the db-context applied to an article that long; and as for the prod... Don't you think we should give a newbie contributor who is probably confused as to where their first attempt at creating this article went a chance to learn what's wrong with their article and create something coherent out of it?  If this is an emerging cult, sect, or new religious group the article should be tagged for clean-up, issues mentioned on the talk page, and given a chance to evolve if possible.  I watchlisted it when I tagged it for clean-up and if there was no change would have prodded it a few days from now.  Lets give the creator a chance to look over the links in the welcome message I left them, and a chance to look at the issues pointed out with clean-up messages and on the talk page, and see if there is a change in the article. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the PROD as well because the article had already been speedied today; I wasn't sure the speedy tag was quite right and also wanted to avoid speedy/recreation pingpong, so I figured I'd save time in the event admin didn't speedy-delete it. DMacks 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is patent nonsense, and so should be deleted quickly. Unfortunately, that would mean that all religious pages shold be deleted for being patent nonsense.  delete anway. Rugbyball 17:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that comment is awful close to a personal attack? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If people are stupid and have stupid beliefs that's their problem. Rugbyball 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, you won't make many friends here with that approach. Live and let live here.--Anthony.bradbury 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not patent nonsense. Please read Patent nonsense and familiarize yourself with what patent nonsense actually is, and, importantly, what it is not. Uncle G 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, then salt the earth It was already deleted once today. Lankybugger 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason to speedily delete it again. It shouldn't have been speedily deleted in the first place.  None of the Criteria for speedy deletion in fact apply. Uncle G 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a feeling I saw this page get speedied more than once today. Is it possible for an admin to look at the edits of the original author and see if he had created it under an alternate name as well (that was also speedied) today? DMacks 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm suspicious as-is, since the reposting of that article is the user's first and only edit. Lankybugger 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the same text as before, by the same author. However, speedy deletion does not apply to this content. The policies that apply are No original research and Verifiability, and AFD is the place to discuss them. Uncle G 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article discusses a religion purportedly founded last year. It cites no sources, and I can find no sources at all.  I can find no evidence that this religion even exists, let alone anything about it.  Much of the article is simply badly re-hashed gnosticism.  Unverifiable.  Delete. Uncle G 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - religiocruft. Baka man  18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article creator appears to be attempting to address some concerns and remedy some of the problems in the article. Unfortunately, in doing so they have just asserted that, at this point in time the existence of Lavaeth Church is not verifiable.  This quote from a recent edit they made to the article:"The number of members of the Lavaeth Church is not numbered greatly, and therefore is given the term 'sect'. Due to its foundation last year in the United Kingdom in the county of Kent it does not have a great deal of publicity. The reason for the Wikipedia article is to give a brief outline of the beliefs of the sect, with references to the scriptures."[Emphasis added]
 * Delete Clearly, comments by one or two editors above show total religious bias, which is not needed in an AfD discussion. But a number of comments made in the article in relation to other religions are inaccurate in the terms of those religions, the basic text is unreferenced, important details lack context, and the sect is, as stated within the text, unknown and therefore non-notable. Could be a hoax, otherwise religiocruft and definitely WP:NN.--Anthony.bradbury 22:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per UncleG's well-stated arguments. -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is an emerging cult, sect, or new religious group the article should be tagged for clean-up, issues mentioned on the talk page, and given a chance to evolve if possible.  Since indeed this is an emerging sect I understand your concern that it has not been cited by reliable sources. Thankyou. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.158.153 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Please note that this article has been reproduced on Wikia as per requests. This article was NOT a hoax, this is a religious following, and I'm worried at the thought that people would take it as a hoax. Nevertheless, I thank you for your comments: In particular:
 * Delete simply from WP:V - not sourced, and if it's an "emerging cult", let it emerge and get some notareity. SkierRMH 02:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This has absolutely no sources and, if real, is completely non-notable. It also may very well be a hoax and even if it isn't the article is so hopelessly POV that it is unsalvageable. --The Way 08:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you really think that I would attempt to write about a religion which is a Hoax? My religious beliefs are not a hoax: Do people really write about Hoax-religions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.85.119 (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Unfortunately, it seems to be that Hoax Religions appear with regularity on Wikipedia. I understand that this faith may be real and may be something by which you live your life (and I do, despite the implications of others, respect that), but without verification it's nigh impossible to seperate from Religions which might have been invented. I do wish you the best in your goals, though. Lankybugger 16:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not verifiable. - Aagtbdfoua 16:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to non-verifiability and extreme religious bias. This may be corrected, but it does not look like this will be possible very soon. ("Jehovah, your father") -- SYCTHOS talk 15:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. It is lifted out of the organisation's promotional literature, albeit with permission, although there is no trace of how that permission has been granted and in what are the limits to that permission, so it may fail WP:COPYVIO. If a profit-making business put up an article like this, it would definitely be considered spam, so why not a "church"? Ohconfucius 08:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Straight forward delete because it is not notable and not verifiable in published sources. Verifiablity is covered above.  A prophet could be considered inherently notable, however, my understanding of the various Wikipedia guidelines would suggest that a prophet would have to attract a significant number of followers before achieving notability, or alternatively, a significant number of gainsayers. There is no evidence either in this case. --Bejnar 19:41, 2 January 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.