Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination)

• Keep Delete this, delete all other fairy tales sites too, christian junk, muslim junk, hindu, wicca, anything dealing with religion of anysort cannot be allowed. Selective censorship is wrong, all or none.

• Keep I can't believe there is so much hate in the world that I can't even believe in my own religion freely because it is not famous enough or more likely...does not have enough monetary value. You people make me sick. If one LEGITIMATE religion is deleted then out of fairness should we not delete them all? May I suggest after deleting this we delete Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from Wikipedia and see if there is a problem then? I think all religions should be mentioned. If that's not how it works when are we going to be allowed to vote the Jews off Wikipedia? I didn't think so. Removing any religion should be a hate crime. --Darkrom (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Darkrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Remove because it is not popular? What a ridiculous reason. Cosmic Ray76 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Cosmic Ray76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep All these "men" came before Jesus and have similar stories as Jesus: Buddha, Krishna, Odysseus, Romulus, Zoroaster, Attis of Phrygia and Horus. So every reference to them must be deleted along with any reference to Jesus if article from the Church of Reality are taken out because of religious bigots. Why should Christians be able to keep their myths on Wikipdedia and not the others? They have no more proof of their "gods" than Muslim, Jews or any of the war-inducing religions we have now.Digitalpug (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalpug (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Digitalpug (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• "Keep" so, in a few months when it is proven beyond doubt that jesus is a composite character created in the fourth century by Eusebius and Constantine in order to keep the population stupid, in fear, and docile (until they're needed to kill non-believers)--you're going to delete Christiatnity too??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsect (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Dsect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• comment Wikipedia is about knowledge - not 'worthy' knowledge. So if no one likes Hitler, delete him? If it is not like or dislike, is it important? Cabbage page kids seem pretty unimportant... It is clearly about offensiveness - Faith is belief in something DESPITE the evidence against it, and seeing something that brings even the slightest possibility of someone perhaps possibly realizing that the world might not be flat after all... Now that must be removed quick fast and in a hurry. What, running out of hard drive space? Gotta clean up the database? Grow up and except that not every one believes in the tooth fairy!! If you leave it no one will care except some religious fanatics who can never be pleased anyway. What is next? Document the possibility that evolution might not be true even though the entire scientific community accepts it, And there is so much evidence for it it is ridiculous to challenge it with stories of magical spontaneous life? How about that grand canyon crap and how bush removed any mention of how long it took to form because the freaks who think the world is only 6k years old might get offended? The dark ages call you, but do not take us there with you.

• Comment No-one is saying you can't or shouldn't believe in it. What is being said is that it may well not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. You will not win your case here by ranting, by claiming other articles should not exist because yours is threatened, or by otherwise ignoring the rules and guidelines here. Just because Wikipedia is open to editing doesn't mean that ANY edit is acceptable. It's our ball, it's our field - it's also our rules. Read the notability guides. You need reliable independent outside sources to establish this notability. Not self-published, not blogs, not forums, not press statements, not your own site. The Oakland Tribune ref looks the sort of thing - but more is needed. Reliable sourcing for the IRS decision might help - as I'm in the UK I don't know how widely they give this recognition to 'religions'. Please note: I'm not attacking you - I'm trying to help you. It's up to YOU to show notability by OUR standards. We don't have to do it for you, and if you don't or can't, well, tough. Peridon (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment - People can vote how they choose. It seems that some people here define "reliable sources" as being in print media like the Oakland Tribune. I would remind people that this is the 21st century and that Wikipedia itself is a web based medium.
    Reality-based community and we own the trademark on the word Reality.--Marcperkel (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

You have a trademark in the USA for the word in connection with religious and counselling matters. (I'm in the UK and we already have a Reality Group Ltd who deliver things.) I say again, it's our ball. Read the guidelines and come up with the goods. Or, start your own encyclopaedia. Don't class me with deletionists or inclusionists. I'm trying to get the true picture - and to help you to keep your article. If you don't like being offered help, that's up to you. Peridon (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to new visitors Please sign your posts with four ~ s. This is not a vote based on numbers. It is a discussion based on reasoned argument, and in particular on references - or the lack of them. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or free web space. Also, if Christianity is shown to be a hoax the article will stay with the new information added. It has plenty of notability whether a hoax or not. Notable hoaxes do have articles. Peridon (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True - the decision to delete the article has already been made like it was the last time. This is just a way to create the illusion that there's some kind of due process so as to justify a decision that has already been made. Your input doesn't really count.--Marcperkel (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My input has counted on more than one occasion where an article has survived against the initial odds. If you think we are a cabal of robed and hooded assassins who secretly discuss and decide these matters, then I'm afraid we're entering the realms of conspiracy theory. I for one am part of no group of conspirators, and on more than one occasion have changed my initial !vote. I haven't !voted here yet. Peridon (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a growing religion and in ten years you guys will have missed the boat on a growing movement to look at reality, not 2000 year old writings. 98.222.51.81 (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— 98.222.51.81 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JTHartke[reply]
• KEEP the Church of reality! It is a viable alternative to the spoon fed dogma that is pervasive in many religions! Frederickus (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)F.Kann— Frederickus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• References, references, references! Sorry, folks, but your personal opinions may be sincerely held (and may even be correct), but they are not encyclopaedic evidence. Peridon (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. I appreciate the thoroughness of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.40.196 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI am unclear on what encyclopaedic evidence entails. Does that mean empirical scientific evidence? If so, how can a talking snake religion be encyclopaedic evidence more than Reality. Keep this religion on Wiki so that others may know the power of Reality. http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/content/blogsection/72/101/ Cbgb2112 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Cbgb2112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• "Read the notability guides. You need reliable independent outside sources to establish this notability. Not self-published, not blogs, not forums, not press statements, not your own site." Quoted from me above. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Peridon (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Google Hits on Church of Reality in general are about 13,000. Does 13k Google hits make you notable? Google hits on "Church of Reality" and Wikipedia together are 1330. These about past conflicts between Wikipedia and the Church of Reality. --Marcperkel (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It is in the best interest of Wikipedia to have a broad and thorough reference site. Otherwise, the website that Wikipedia recommends we start could overshadow them.
  Here is an article Wikipedia might be interested in. Is reality real? Does reality have merit? Should we believe in reality? Wiki thinks so... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmic Ray76 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Cosmic Ray76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• KeepThis is a perfectly valid organization which has the potential to improve the appearance of humanity. Why delete it? Afraid of running out of space? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatshare (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Flatshare (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Unless Wikipedia proposes to begin sorting religious sects into "real" and "unreal" or "acceptable" and "unacceptable" [a highly ironic undertaking under the circumstances] to promote or not promote, then we need to keep this page active. To remove this page would be narrow minded at least, and not in the interest of those seeking information on this topic. I don't think we really want to get into the business of passing judgment on other people's religious beliefs here, do we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberus1949 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can we get published, encyclopaedia on the existence of Wikipedia? You know, outside sources from outside your own site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTHartke (talk— JTHartke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. contribs) 17:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. See Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is much that goes on and the Church of Reality is part of it. There is no good reason to remove this. Why would corporate media (what the removers call "legitimate media") report on another challenge to their corporate "God"? But plenty of people have talked, a fact that can be confirmed by googling "Church of Reality" (with the quotes) and that fact alone has conferred legitimacy. Owlswan (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Owlswan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The reason for deleting it is that information comes only from "unreliable sources," such as the Internet? What about Wikipedia itself--is it such an unreliable source? I personally know a number of members of the Church of Reality, and it has been recognized as a church by the U.S. Government; what more is necessary to show that it is real? I visited the Apostolic Temple Church in South Bend, Indiana, yet the only newspaper mentions of this church are in the South Bend Tribune. Does that mean it doesn't exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russtms1 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Russtms1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep It is a tough topic from the point of wikipedia. Church of Reality is a relatively unknown and new religion. This religion could not have been established a 100 years ago, it requires 'modern' thinking. Wikipedia could argue that it is not notable enough en thus using wikipedia to get more attention. On the other side, this is a religion that fills an empty spot in 'religion space'. In order to have full coverage of the different types of religions available, this religion should be mentioned. It has encyclopedic value in my opinion. Eecolor (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Eecolor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep* That the Church of Reality exists is reason enough to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.151.225 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 98.71.151.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Are you serious? (*cough*) - Wikipedia can have a "legitimate" page on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism [4], but not the equally well-fleshed-out and comparatively serious Church Of Reality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.93.105 (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 75.83.93.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• "Keep" Why would Wikipedia not give the Church of Reality the same consideration it gives other churches? We need more not less rational thought in this country! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srauer08 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Srauer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Wikipedia denies REALITY? --Noahveil (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC — Noahveil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I have an Encyclopedia Britannica from 1965. There is no mention of Wikipedia. Perhaps it should also be deleted? Why is this even an issue?72.226.60.238 (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— 72.226.60.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep It is recognized as a religion by the US Government. It is my opinion that any legitimate religion is "notable" or "important" enough to be included in wikipedia. Besides, there are numerous articles about topics less important or notable (ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx) ELITE B MAN (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— ELITE B MAN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep I am a member of the Church of Reality. The CoR deserves all the considerations given to other churches. Much of my world view comes from my adherence to the principles taught by the church, such as those found at http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/the_sacred_principles/ 70.90.129.9 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— 70.90.129.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep I vote keep. The web site/ forum exists and has active members. They espouse a growing concept. Is there some bias going on here that only wants to back established large scale religions?? Just a thought. en Eldernorm (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— Eldernorm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The Church of Reality is a real organization and deserves a mention in this rag of a pseudo-encyclopedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.22.60 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — 68.124.22.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep""" As with any other valid, accurate information, the information regarding the Church of Reality should be kept on Wikipedia. 2010.01.25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.141.254 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
• I vote to keep the Church and quit the cencorship attempt by Wiki.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renodave (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Renodave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Inbound Links Go to GOOGLE and search "Link: churchofreality.org" and you will see that the Church of Reality is linked to from 34,300 web pages. If that isn't notable then Wikipedia is dishonest. --Marcperkel (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The arguments to delete fall into to reasons. One the lack of "notability" and two the supposed lack of lack of reliability attributed to Marc Perkel. If notability means the willingness of people to support the Church of Reality then one need look no further than the number of responses to this attempt to kill the article. There are more Keep post and those posts are more lengthy and varied than the single lines given by those who want the article. As far as Mr. Perkel's reliability, the man has had a web presence for at least 15 years; as far the WWW is concerned his behavior is an open book. If the poster who alleges that Perkel is unreliable was able to provide proof of that he certainly could have provided specific citations.
  The Church of Reality deserves the same respect that other minor religions deserve.
  I am not a member of the Church nor do I plan to join. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia and one of the reasons is because of the breadth of articles. Deleting an article needs a higher burden than those who wish to delete have shown.Buzzcook (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— Buzzcook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: I am new to this however I felt a need to speak. I currently "work" (unpaid) as a Rev for the Church of Reality here in south west Mo. I see no valid reason to delete this entry. However I do understand that this is not a vote to keep or delete the article, I just wanted to add a short note. And I hope I have done it right... Rev Dr Alan (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Rev Dr Alan FCD Prime— Rev Dr Alan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• KEEP: Prove to me that any other religion is factual, or just delete them all. Is Wikipedia now in the business of only publishing accurate facts? (I applaud monitoring posts that pertain to real subjects and tangible facts, but all religions are simply "belief"-based, and therefore all should be allowed. Then you can censure for historical facts, influence, etc., but to not allow one? That's absurd.)

• KEEP: If we need to publish more material, I for one am willing to publish... but just how much material is needed?

• KEEP: The Church is informative, and entertaining. It would be a shame to have it go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.40.5 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of facts. The church is a fact worthy of noting, it is not listed as a popularity contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.19.161 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Church of Reality is a real church. Are the moderators at wikipedia so threatened by a new religion they have to ban it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.192.247 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You're still not getting it YOU don't need to publish anything. Anything published by you is not independent. It's stuff like articles ABOUT (not just mentioning) the Church in reliable sources that are not editable by you (or me, unless I happened to be a staff writer there). "Is Wikipedia now in the business of only publishing accurate facts?" Weren't we from the start? That's what encyclopaedias are for. "all religions are simply "belief"-based" - yes, but if there is little or no independent factual coverage of them, how do we know they're not something made up one day? Some Scouts I knew created a religion (Nevillism) to use for a My Faith Badge. Does Nevillism deserve an article? It's got a belief system and a theology, and the Scouts claimed to be believers - quite convincingly (they got their badges...). I'm not saying that's what the Church of Reality is - but it is up to YOU to PROVE it isn't. At the moment, all we're getting is personal opinions from people we don't know - who might be different people or just one with a bike. I've looked for references. So far I've found self-published or bloggy things. And I've also found The Christian Church of Reality - which doesn't have an article here. Not all religions do. Please do realise that this is not a head count. It's a discussion based on facts or lack of facts. Produce the facts about your beliefs. Independently sourced. Not forum or blog, or self-published. By the way - we're not trying to ban any religion. Just make sure that all articles are properly verifiable. You are quite free to have your religion. Having an article is another matter. Peridon (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is you who aren't getting it. If you Google "link: churchofreality.org" you'll see 34,400 sites linking to us. Surely out of 34k web sites there is SOMETHING that you consider to be a "reliable source". Maybe you should define what YOU mean by reliable sources? --Marcperkel (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V. For those who don't like alphabet soup, N is the notability policy, and V is for verifiability. BURDEN is where it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." This means the creator of the article in this sort of case, but friends and colleagues are also welcome to assist. Believe me, if I found a suitable reference I'd put it on the table here. I just thought I'd found one but it just contained a comment by mperkel. That was the only one in the first 100 ghits. Peridon (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

So you're saying that anything touched by mperkel makes it not reliable? --Marcperkel (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Two classes of people It seems that there are two classes of people here. I don't understand who it is that finally decides this. Are any of you in this discussion some sort of Wikipedia editors? I'd like those with more than normal priveledges to identify themselves so that we know who it is that gets to make the call. Or is the all for show and the back room has already made the call? I'm asking you to reveal the process and the players. --Marcperkel (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The process is described at Wikipedia:Deletion process. As for the players, pretty much anybody can contribute to the discussion. At the end of the discussion period (nominally 7 days), an administrator (see Wikipedia:List of administrators) will come along, read the debate, and figure out what consensus (if any) has been reached. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Or else start deleting articles about soccer players in obscure teams in out of the way towns. The Church of Reality is a legitimately new idea and it does have a membership. I am a member of the Church of Reality, and I am not Marc Perkel, in the sense that most people understand that statement (my name is Tom Buckner, and I occupy a physical body in meatspace in North Carolina on the other side of the North American continent). Peridon, above, says "Not forum or blog, or self-published" evidence suffices. But such organizations and social movements always start that way. It has ever been thus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.76.176 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And will be thus. But until they achieve the level of sourcing Wikipedia calls for..... Or until Wikipedia moves the goal posts - you are all welcome to become regular editors and then move up to places where you can influence policymaking. Takes time. By then, the CoR will have the refs it needs anyway. Peridon (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response So far as taking part in an AfD is concerned, there is one basic class. Anyone is welcome to make a serious contribution. Whether we are regular editors or admin people or SpAs (single purpose accounts), we can contribute. Exceptions are when apparently separate accounts turn out to be run by one person - that's sockpuppetry if done directly, or meatpuppetry if using other people as puppets. When the discussion period had run its course, an experienced admin will weigh up the arguments and either make a decision based on them, or relist for more discussion. If an admin's decision is thought to be faulty, there can be appeal. (Don't ask me how - nevewr done it.) I will admit that when the arguments are weighed up, SpAs do carry less weight - usually because they do not contribute much (or anything at times) to the discussion. Me? I'm a regular editor approaching 6000 edits, and working mainly in the edits by new accounts area, AfD (Articles for Deletion), and improving articles by doing copy-eds. I also sometimes translate from French, and have edited on the French and Norwegian Wikipedias. I prefer to save an article if possible, but if there's no willingness to listen or help from the supporters there's often little I can do. I also hunt spam - but am willing to help people turn a spammy advert into a proper article - if they will ask me to. BTW, I rather like the sound of your church, but already have a religion I am happy with - and I'm not saying what it is. It doesn't conflict with knowledge and investigation, like so many of the holy book bound ones do. Peridon (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'm interested. What is your church? --Marcperkel (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I never say. (I never give my real name(s), either.) It doesn't affect my neutrality, anyway, and it isn't Nevillism. Now, about those references - get your supporters digging. With all those ghits, there could well be something there. AfD usually lasts a week. Peridon (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is obscure. I can't find a web site that explains it. As to references I gave you 34k references. I have no idea what you are looking for. --Marcperkel (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You pointed to 34k of mentions of a set of words. YOU (that is, the creator and supporters of the article) have to sift out the ones that fit in with the policies I gave you. Filter out all the blogs, forums and so on. Look for the newspaper articles - not just mentions - or magazine articles (not your inhouse mag, of course, or ones where they print anything sent in that's not actually obscene or libellous), or television reports (but beware of CNN - much of their site is user submitted and regarded here with suspicion). Do look at the Flying Spaghitti Monster article. It cites 68 references, enough of which are considered reliable and independent for the article to survive. You won't need that many - you do need more than the Oakland Tribune one. Peridon (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• MarcPerkel Would it be possible to try and get other news organizations to document you? It seems Flying Spaghetti Monster Flying Spaghetti Monster is notable enough... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.32.10 (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not here to prove anything. I didn't write the article and I don't have to defend the notability of the Church of Reality. The Church of Reality has come under attack before by Delitionists and it's a flaw in the wikipedia system. When you point out the obvious and they don't get it then there's no point in continuing to do so. --Marcperkel (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a flaw; these are policies and guidelines. You may disagree with them and that's fine, but if you want Wikipedia to have an article about this organization you'll need to find us some reliable secondary sources. No one here is trying to deny its existence, just its notability. If all those Google results really turn up nothing that we can use then sorry, it's just not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Reach Out to the Truth 20:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia; I'm curious about this "Nevillism". I may have heard about it from a young scout. I may have heard about it from some very unknown website. Never-the-less, I'm curious. Small as the religion is, I want a source to learn about what the hell I just heard. Do I agree with it? Do I want to have it banned? How would I ever know? I would turn to a reliable source which has a broad base of knowledge. Wikipedia. I will judge for myself and not try to supress information like a third world leader. Its like the Ebay of information. Whatever IT is, its on Wiki. Except Ebay doesn't delete pages designated for dolls with purple dresses for the simple reason that the website owners do not like dolls with purple dresses. Of course this is just a metaphor. Wikipedia MUST maintain the high standard of a broad base of information to keep their high standards and broad source of information. If I cannot find the things I am looking for on Wikipedia, why would I ever bookmark it? Why would it ever be my go-to source for info? I caould always replace Wikipedia with Google. They are not prejudice. To maintain respect as an open source of information, you must keep it open to information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.0.113 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google reveals quite a few Nevillisms, none of which appear to be the one I mentioned. I think it's a name that begs to be picked on. Peridon (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Church of Reality is bigger than you think. I've been a member since Marc Perkel explained his ideas on BartCop several years ago. I live in New Hampshire, and if anybody calls me a meat puppet I'll sock him! Wikipedia claims to be unbiased and serious, not a free advertising forum. How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover%27s_Morning_Glory I think it looks like blatant self-promotion, for some sick radio shock-jocks. What is their significance in the big picture here?64.222.179.187 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— 64.222.179.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep! If Wikipedia wants to eliminate all references to any religion, then delete the Church of Reality. If Wikipedia wants to eliminate "unpopular" knowledge, then delete the Church of Reality. If, on the other hand, Wiki wants to live up to its mission then KEEP these pages. Just say "No" to ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSS-666 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — RSS-666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep! It's only fair to include it since there are those who would like to be members who should be able to find information here and those of us who are members can contribute information here.Leftcoasttoo (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— Leftcoasttoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• keep I would argue that no religion has started out as a "documented" entity. Since the church of reality is probably one of the few religions to begin after the advent of the internet, I could probably safely assume that it is at a disadvantage with religions which may be hundreds or thousands of years old. Keep it to see if it "evolves" and decide later. By the way, it is a very unusual take on religion since what is "believed" must in effect be real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kroc7333 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — Kroc7333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep what's wrong with believing in what's real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.24 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 72.234.207.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Nobody's trying to tell you what you can or can't believe. Feel free to keep on believing in what's real, and maybe some day you'll receive significant coverage that qualifies the organization for a Wikipedia article. The Church of Reality won't cease to exist just because its Wikipedia article is deleted. Wikipedia doesn't dictate reality. Reach Out to the Truth 20:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP The Church of Reality is an important part of human evolution. It is the beginning of the realization that we are crippled by our need for religion, when we have to use religion of the meta-physical, and it says, "Why not use the physical world we have as our religion?" It is beautiful and necessary for us to understand this. I have read it online, which is where I read my news sources. Not in physical papers, not on TV stations. Wikipedia is online, which is where Im reading and writing this now. Not in physical papers, and not on TV stations. The fact that the Church of Reality is a new entity is part of the point here, and keeping the information suppressed just continues it to be less known. I believe the attempts to delete this are religious bigotry, wrapped in the bureaucratic code of Wikipedia editors. Many people have pointed out many sources that only exist online and are written up in Wikipedia, and many little-known items that are left in Wikipedia. Do your job and leave content that people want to learn about in Wikipedia. GeoffHowland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.77.65 (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 209.75.77.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• keep it's what free speech is all about. Support the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.250.243.17 (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 149.250.243.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Wikipedia should accord the same deference to the Church of Reality as to other churches. D.Boldt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.20.6 (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 69.238.20.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Why would you want less diversity on your site? The beauty of wikipedia is the mystery of where your personal exploration of the site might take you. If you delete this page, that's one less avenue of discovery. On another note, I found and joined the Church of Reality through wikipedia. That may not me notable to you personally, but it's notable to me. To delete this page would be notable as well, as I will personally write and submit an op-ed relating my views regarding your deletion policy and submit it to as many news outlets as I can. Thanks for your consideration. Noah Kerwin (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — Noah Kerwin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Why is this even being challenged?...If this is to be deleted, 99% of the crap on this website needs deleting as per your policy. Im gonna have to start cleaning house here if this gets deleted. 69.171.160.69 (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— 69.171.160.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note: you are very welcome to start nominating crap for deletion - right now. I would ask you to read the relevant policies first, however. Just to be on the safe side. Peridon (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If Wikipedia is to be a comprehensive repository of information surely it would to better to keep as much information as possible in the interest of providing as much information as possible on any given subject. Knowledge should not be a popularity contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipua (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepI've heard of the church of reality before, it's not something new. 174.21.210.110 (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— 174.21.210.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep I'm not a regular contributor because I believe one must be absolutely sure about what one contributes to this knowledge-site, but knowledge is what this site is about. Why delete the information about a philosophical group ? If you do so you must delete all information about any sect at all... about any philosophy that ever existed. This is not good. Information should be available. If you insist, add a caveat. But let the information exist.--Babetheke (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)— Babetheke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is full of absolutely worthless nonsense, but this is a reasonable addition tot he Wikipedia ouvre, so keep the Church of Reality. Why keep pages with stuff about magic creatures that walk on water or raise the dead but delete something that describes reality? Seriously, Wikipedia people, you should show more sense than this.

• Keep Church of Reality seems to be at the same stage as the Church of the Subgenius in 1988, except not as publicity-seeking. I'm not a member of CoR or any organization but it seems to me that if CoR is notable enough to attract my attention to edit one of these pages for the first time to try to prevent a regrettable case of censorship they are notable enough to occupy a small space in Wikipedia -- perhaps with more original research as in the case of the Church of the Subgenius 12.74.22.70 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - People look to Wikipedia for accurate information about anything. The primary question for any article under review should be "is this accurate?” If an article is accurate, full of facts, and not just self-promotion then there's no reason to delete it. If your goal is to delete useless crap from Wikipedia, you might want to begin with anything that starts with "List of". Advocating the deletion of a purely factual article about something that goes against the establishment is simply censorship. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a purely establishment encyclopedia. If you value history at all then this article is already notable enough. There needs to be an article here, whether it is about the church itself or a chronicle of it being targeted for deletion from Wikipedia. Forbidding any article about it, whether a contemporary or a purely historical account, is simply not acceptable at this point. Coupdeforce (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)— Coupdeforce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: The Church of Reality has now been mention in "Courthouse News Service" http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/28/24162.htm This was in regard to The Church of Realities court of appeals case about use of marijuana.
  "(CN) - Members of the Church of Reality, who say the Drug Enforcement Administration is stifling some "really good ideas" by refusing to let them use marijuana, lost their appeal in the 9th Circuit."
  CN is a reliable news organization and a case that reaches the court of appeals is notable in itself.Buzzcook (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)— Buzzcook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (y'all !voted above, Jack Merridew )[reply]

• Keep I agree with Catherineyronwode Three notables -

Oakland Tribune

Court House News

Public Record

Disclaimer: I am a CoR member. marklhessel —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC). — Marklhessel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• DISMANTLE WIKI CABAL I have followed this discussion from the beginning and I am very concerned by what I have witnessed here. It should be obvious to anyone that editors with more 'pull' on this site have already made up their minds to remove the CofR page and that they really aren't interested in having a constructive discussion. The language by proponents of keeping the page have been respectful. By comparison, opponents have been abusive to the extreme, using language that I have found deeply offensive. I would suggest that the behavior of opponents resembles a cabal of overlords striking down comments that they feel don't reflect their own views. Bad form wiki. I have lost much respect for your site. Noah Kerwin (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)— Noah Kerwin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Moving Target "Significant coverage" is vague enough that it leaves open the possibility of 'editors' constantly raising the bar on what might qualify. The COI test is flawed as well as it leaves open the claim that any 'expert' on a subject whom edits a page may be considered to have a COI. The SPAM test doesn't hold up either as I would challenge you to prove that the CoR actively pushes it's data on anyone who doesn't voluntarily seek it. Maybe you consider dissent or any opposing views to be spam? Noah Kerwin (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It appears that Editors of Wikipedia do not believe in Reality. I am a Church of Reality member and am sick and tired of "religious" folk trying to ram their beliefs down my throat everyday yet you (Wikipedia and other religious zealots) can't seem to understand - this is it, this is reality, you do not get a second chance at life (be reborn), this is REALITY, yet you allow every other sky fairy story (religion) to be promoted on this site. Truly unbelievable! --Jamminjoey (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)— Jamminjoey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]