Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple of the Jedi Order (Real)

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 Speedy Delete. AfD didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, plus the author blanked the page, which in my book, is a concession. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of the Jedi Order (Real)

This article is not written in a neutral point of view; it reads partly like an advertisement, partly like an argument, and partly like bylaws of an organization. It does not read like an encyclopedia article. The editor(s) who have authored it claim that the basis for notability is "Notability wise, the temple has over 900 members, and is substantial because it is one of the few Jedi groups who actually have been recognized by the government in any capacity". This does not pass any of the notability tests in WP:ORG. Specifically:

From a google search engine test, using "Temple of the Jedi Order" (in quotes), we get 49 unique articles, nowhere near the "1,940,000 results" that the editor claimed in the article diff
- All of these results fall into one of these classes:
  - the organization's own website
  - exact duplication of the organization's website content (mirror)
  - state of texas corporate registrar (simple listing; no context)
  - blog
  - myspace
  - personal unreliable non-notable website
  - critical website (claiming they are a hoax)
  - Google Answers Expert Opinions (all say it is not a religion and/or may be a hoax)
  - mirror of wikipedia content (eg. answers.com)
The article is self-promotion, contrary to WP:ORG#fn_2_back

In the edit summary, one of the contributing editors threatened legal action if his content was removed again: "I will seek a federal injunction if necessary". This is an inherantly bad faith remark.diff

This article should be deleted. Recommend the contributors enter a small amount of content on their organization in Jedi_(census)#Related_movements. Jerry lavoie 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kudos to Jerry on some fine detective work. I suppose we could call the Jedi a non-notable religion, but that doesn't do justice to the absurdity of the whole thing. Part of it might belong on WP:BJAODN. YechielMan 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a stupid hoax. Aplomado ^talk 00:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, be nice. --Dennisthe2 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The nom has it right, this article comes of as an advert for a currently non-notable and apparently newly-formed religous group. I'd almost say BJAODN here. --Dennisthe2 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, Strong Delete. I just looked at the note that the nom made about the history, with the link to the diff - and threats of any sort of legal action don't sit very well with me, for one. --Dennisthe2 00:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny how (Real) was in the article's title... Mathmo ^Talk 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, they are ever now asking for deletion: "Please delete this article. We do not fit the criteria. We support the policies of Wikipedia.". Maybe even speedy close this. Mathmo ^Talk 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT by nom The original contributor had blanked the page and requested article deletion, as Mathmo pointed out above. Since page blanking while an article in being considered at AfD is against policy I reverted it. Any admin please close this AFD as speedy and delete the article per this discussion and contributor's request. Jerry lavoie 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message requesting administrator assistance to speedy close this debate has already been posted at WP:AN. Jerry lavoie 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.