Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order of Bahamut


 * 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 Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7. Article described an alleged cult with 14 members. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Order of Bahamut

 * — (View AfD)

Nomination for deletion Unverifiable cult, possible hoax. Contested prod and contested speedy delete (I'm concerned this may be an attack page against the Catholic Church). Google only brings up a video gaming guild. Bwithh 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Thoroughly unverified, and it sure looks like a hoax with google results like that. Heimstern Läufer 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unverifiable, possibly a hoax. Hello32020 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, nonsense seems to be the right thing. I can't call attack, as it's something that's ostensibly within the catholic church, so if anything, it's pointing to that, not the catholics as a whole. --Dennisthe2 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the "idol worship" part which suggested the attack angle to me (standard accusation from critics that Catholic Church engages in idolatory of the Virgin Mary). The article is not patent nonsense, so I don't believe db-nonsense applies (in any case, being in afd overrules the csd tagging, although its perfectly fine to !vote for speedy deletion in afd) Bwithh 01:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, good point. Though with Karken's assertion, while it's clearly not nonsense, it does beg the question as to whether a db-bio would be even remotely appropriate.  I'd say no, given he's asserting some kind of notability, if only pseudo-verbally; your thoughts, please? --Dennisthe2 02:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment from article creator moved from article talk page and registering as keep by Bwithh 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a cult that I am a member of. It is really, a relatively new cult, and does not have many followers. (Only 14) My sect ::leader, Jyaharut, wanted me to post about it on the internet so that others could learn about the ways of our cult, become ::members, and possibly start their own sect. He encourages it.


 * I'm sorry if you don't believe, but we have no funding for a website currently, and we want to spread the word about our Order.


 * Please, just hear me out. Once we get a website, you can delete the article, but my family, and my cult leader would appreciate ::it if you kept it here until we get a website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karken (talk • contribs) — Karken (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Above comment by User:Karken moved from article talk page by Bwithh 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Bwithh 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, maybe not an attack page, then. But this comment suggests strongly that this cult is completely non-notable. Heimstern Läufer 01:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP is not a free webhost and this sect is completely unnotable as admitted by the editor who added the article - 15 members. --Bduke 02:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as either a hoax or a totally inappropriate use of Wikipedia to promote a completely non-notable group. Joyous! | Talk 02:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP is not a free webhost, esp. for an unverified cult. ThuranX 05:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. Not quite G1 material, but close.  Not for things made up in school one day, and that. Tevildo 06:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT a free webhost, wrong place to host stuff. Terence Ong 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Regardless of anything else, this article has no sources, and a religious group with only 14 members is unlikely to be notable. (Although the Shakers have fewer than that now, at their peak they had thousands of members, and they have been the subject of considerable public and media attention, unlike this Order.) --Metropolitan90 06:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Res delenda est. Per WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:HOAX, WP:NONSENSE, WP:BOLLOCKS, etc etc. And salt it until Lot becomes nostalgic. --  SigPig  |SEND - OVER 07:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - this is an obvious joke. No one in a cult is going to refer to it as a "cult" or a "sect".  Hatch68 08:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An article being a hoax is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Heimstern Läufer 08:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's open to discussion, see WP:CSDUA. Also, could be deleted as CSD G3, see first line of WP:VANDAL, same guideline says hoax or joke aricles are speediable as vandalism. Tubezone 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to put a speedy delete template on it. I'm just advocating that there is obviously a delete consensus and no more time should be wasted on this joke.  Hatch68 08:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Enough. MER-C 10:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, amusing reading, but should be deleted as per all of the policies quoted above. Possibly a hoax.  Lankiveil 11:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 14:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7 (14 followers, no money for website = no assertion of notability) and WP:SNOW as unverifiable bollocks and stuff made up during catechism class while the sister wasn't watching. Tubezone 17:14, 1 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.