Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Temple of the Lord's Grace


 * 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 of the debate was delete.  Sango 123  20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Temple of the Lord's Grace
Made up religion. Please see WP:NFT. Deprodded. Weregerbil 07:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely all religions were made up at one time. Please note stranger religions on Wikipedia, such as Inedia, church of Virus, or Elan Vital. These are rather odd, yet they are not up for deletion. The Elan Vital doesn't even have an article! Just because you do not believe it to be true, does not mean it is false. Religious persecution is wrong. --EmptyF 1 07:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A religion is not "made up," per se. It is a tradition employed by a large group of people for hundreds or thousands of years, and engrains itself into the culture of those people.  This, on the other hand, is something some bored high school kids made up.  Even if they devote their lives to it, it is at best a cult, and at worst a geeky club for people who have nothing better to do.  --NMChico24 22:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have also nominated Church of Virus for deletion. The other two examples you gave appear to warrant articles.  --NMChico24 02:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A religion "is a tradition employed by a large group of people for hundreds or thousands of years"? So Wicca is not a religion? I think perhaps your definition of religion could use some re-evaluation. That said, this is Something Made Up In School One Day, not a religion. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete non notable--Drmaik 08:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as quite clearly a hoax or so insignificant as to have escaped all media attention -Peripitus (Talk) 08:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete made-up, non-sensical pablum; Oh, and Elan Vital does have an article, stupid .Gnrlotto 08:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Be nice! --NMChico24 22:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But he is stupid. And doubly so for claiming this article doesn't exist. When a user's first goal on Wikipedia is to disrupt it, I say adios to the  niceties and polish up my chompers for some good ol'  biting! Gnrlotto
 * I was thinking about this, and if you go to the list of religions and click on the Elan Vital one, it goes to the disamiguation page, not the organization --Andlat 04:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So? Gnrlotto
 * Perhaps EmptyF1 was in a hurry/didn't look at the whole page, so he didn't notice the link. I think you are stupid for not giving it any thought! --Andlat 06:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The link clearly says (organization). So your argument is that he may be too lackadaisical to know something that blatantly obvious, but that he should be given the benefit of the doubt on an article he made up and has absolutely no sources for. Genius level thinking at work. Gnrlotto


 * Delete per nom. Tevildo 08:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Charlesknight 14:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.   ''Em-jay-es  16:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of independent sources for verification that such a religion has come to the public's attention. --Metropolitan90 18:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. Danny Lilithborne 21:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Now my eyes hurt trying to decipher that page. Thanks a lot. --DarkAudit 22:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What a mess! Every sentence says "this may be deleted"?  Delete, hoax, nonsense.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as near-patent nonsense. --DarkAudit 22:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete for the love of God --BigDT 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Thousands of years? Let's see your archeological and anthropological evidence.  Otherwise, it's patent nonsense.  I believe I had something speedied that is very similar to this a few weeks ago.  --NMChico24 22:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete for the next few thousands of years. SM247 My Talk  01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom TheRingess 04:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I, for one, believe that he is telling the truth. But, hey, delete it if you want. --Andlat 04:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT something made up one day. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * move move to WP:BJODN it is funny.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 01:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, nn notable,fails google, doesn't help that it's only link is Tripod (which Firefox wouldn't even open for me).--John Lake 18:56, 6 July 2006 (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.