Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priorism


 * 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 -- JForget 02:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Priorism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't think this is notable, but in any case it seems to constitute original research. -- Menti  fisto  06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)




 * Not enough time - Please, don't nominate articles for deletion soon after they've been created unless they're patent nonsense, etc. Give them some time.  Sean MD80 talk 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is "patent nonsense etc" (although I agree it's not an A1 candidate).  I'd advise reading the content of the external links to the article... Tevildo (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The AFD process gives everyone 5 days to find sources. Please read the Guide to deletion and familiarize yourself with the process. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article certainly is quite interesting, and if expanded may meet Wikipedia's criteria. I'm going to vote that we leave it for now, but that this article be watched. My bet is that it may never be expanded beyond its current form. If that is the case, then this article should be marked again in the future. Rotovia (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The criteria include, amongst others, No original research. A one-man religion that the rest of the world has not acknowledged will never accord with that policy.  That is exactly the sort of thing that our policy is there to keep out of Wikipedia.  And a MySpace page is self-published and not fact checked, and exactly the sort of thing that our Verifiability policy warns against relying upon.  Please put our policies and guidelines into practice. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not enough time - I agree, 10hours is not enough time to see where this Article is going.  Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  11:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is if one looks at the sources, as other editors have actually done, and sees that this is, if one relies upon unreliable sources and takes them at face value, a one-person religion, that only that one person has ever documented, on self-published web pages. One can see where articles are going by looking at the sources they will be based upon.  If there are no reliable sources to be had, then clearly they aren't going anywhere.  This is one of the fundamentals of our Deletion policy.  Please put it into practice.  Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy A7 . No assertion of notability, probable hoax.  Appropriate tag added.  Tevildo (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and I just HangOn'd that CSD while this AFD is in progress. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree with you on that point - this is _one_ guy (I'd say "teenager", but he claims to be 23) who has put up a joke MySpace page to insult his local church; a less appropriate candidate for a Wikipedia article is difficult to imagine. But, if we have to go through the full rigmarole of AfD to eliminate the entry, we have to.  Strongest Possible Delete. Tevildo (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I just feel that once AFD started the process should be left to finish. Also, I'm not sure this guy is alone, at that location mabey, but possibly this guy gave him the viewpoint to start with. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  12:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. There are genuine philsophical concepts by this name, see below.  They have nothing whatsoever to do with this one person in Ashford, Kent creating a joke MySpace page. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is partly why I wanted to not have this Article CSD'd but explored instead. There is a Article in here somewhere. It it worth a re-write? Someone going so far as to purchase a Domain Name in pursuit of a hoax against a real church will not be put off WP by a simple CSD. I hate to have to see a salting of an Article name that we know is just going to keep comming back if the space isn't filled in or redirected. It may be a hoax, it may fail WP:V as the article currently stands. (My hope is that it gets rewritten by a true theologian.) Im not saying that it passes either standard, nor have I made any !Vote. On the other hand, if we all were to Assume Good Faith of the editor, is 10hours enough time for a new article to provide everything required to satisfy everyone? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This whiffs of hoax. The term "Priorism" does not appear in this provided linke: 1. It doesn't seem to appear in this one, either, but the pictures that do appear are instructive. On the MySpace account linked, the term is used as follows, in "Rev Paul's Blurbs": "I am one of Ashfords Resident Baptists. There are not many of us left in Ashford, so I really would like to meet other Baptist's from around the world. I can be very forward, and I am not shy about speaking my mind. I am seen as a radical in my local Church, but we all prey to the same "being" at the end of the day. I founded the Church of Priorism in June 2000. If your anti my religion your on the wrong page. Only leave a comment IF your going to be nice.. cos what goes around comes around...Don't make me baptist you...." Paul adds, "I'll do more then Baptise your Ass, I'll sign you up to a week's course!!" Even if it's not a hoax, "Rev Paul" himself suggests the church may not be notable "There are not many of us left in Ashford." Respectfully, Exit2DOS2000, the fact that somebody else uses the term in what seems a very different text doesn't make this group notable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. For those who don't get it, the Saturn finger is the middle finger and so the so-called "Sign of the Baptist" is actually the bird. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked for sources, and came up empty-handed. This is a one-person religion, that only that one person has ever documented, on a self-published web pages&mdash; assuming that it is even that.  As others have noted, the web page appears to be a joke, which its creator, as  clearly is, is abusing Wikipedia in order to propagate.  Editors who think that we should keep this should take a refresher course in our No original research and Verifiability policies.  We don't accept this person's joke claim on a MySpace page to be a founder of a religion any more than we accept the 350-odd claims of people who claim on their MySpace pages to be God King.  Our goal is to create an accurate encyclopaedia, not to create a mish-mash amalgamation of whatever people decide to write about themselves on the World Wide Web, or indeed what they decide to write about themselves directly in Wikipedia (see Autobiography).  This claimed religion has not been peer reviewed, fact checked, published, and accepted into the general corpus of human knowledge.  It is unverifiable and original research, created by an editor with a conflict of interest.  Delete. Ironically, the search for sources turns up a priorism, a concept in philosophy which we don't have an article on.  We should be ashamed of even considering giving a joke religion "more time" before putting it up for deletion when genuine encyclopaedic topics with this name have yet to be covered. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * NO DELETE After reading the comments above I first decided this was a joke, BUT after taking the time to read though the external links mainly this one I beleive that this is real, their following my not be huge but this does not make it untrue. They seem to have a light hearted look on life and seem not to make everything hell and brimstone from of the comments on the site. As for there sign looking like the bird in my opinion this is far from the truth. If you take the time to read the infomation you can see how the sign has changed over the years. NO DELETE moleunc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * — moleunc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, please, Delete this nonsense. Just a way to let people give you the finger and try to claim it's a religious symbol.   Corvus cornix  talk  23:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mostl;y a copyvio of DGG (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not DeleteBeing a meber of this church it is greatly dissapointing to see how many of you disbelieve us and our faith. The baptist is a great man and we truly have faith in our work.--Flameingskull (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC) — Flameingskull (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as hoax. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Comment Not sure it will turn out to be notable enough to be kept, lack of second party sources etc. However this should not have been nominated this early according to proper procedure. -- neon white user page talk 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind wikilinking? I don't remember having read that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Second that. There is no such procedure.   Corvus cornix  talk  02:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as apparently a hoax. If it can be proven to be real, instead merge to something such as Seventh Day Baptist, a form of which this appears to be.  Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when do Seventh Day Adventists give other people the finger to show their religion?  Corvus cornix  talk  04:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unable to assert article's notability - I can't even find a solitary news article discussing this alleged religion. To be honest, I don't know if there's enough reliably sourced information to justify merging. Sidatio (talk) 04:53, 8 January 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.