Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Jesus Christ GOD

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. -- Steel 11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Jesus Christ GOD

Biographical article that fails the guidelines in WP:BIO, WP:RS, possibly WP:HOAX, etc. Google test turns up roughly 587 hits, which is extremely low considering that this is claimed to be an Internet meme. Crystallina 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - For reasons listed above. mirageinred 23:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong not delete - For new reasons listed below and extensive sources added to original article. How about a recommend for improvement and/or other templates? Jeremy Bright 00:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Granted, you make several good points.

Ted is neither a household name nor remotely as popular as other internet memes, like Chuck Norris, Mr. T, or David Hasselhoff. However, I first submit his YouTube channel [1] as evidence upon his behalf, and additionally argue erroneously and irreverently that if I myself had 587 actual returns on Google, I would feel like an internet meme.

Additionally, and more likely to be of any persuasion, I admit that my little article on Ted is in no way authoritive or complete. However, I do think Ted holds just as much weight as the Longniddry railway station and its article[2]. Yet, Longriddry railway station receives a stub alert and invites Wikipedians to improve it and make it better, while mine is, after epochs of hard keyboard labor and toil, proposed for deletion in under two minutes. And I know how important Neomphalida are, and why they deserve their own Wikipedian article, I'm just proposing that maybe, since Ted is (probably) just as famous - if not more so - as Neomphalida [3] are, that he be allowed to remain. Believe me, if I had any information which I could use to flesh out Longniddry railway station's article, I would hasten to add it, but alas I do not. Instead, I am merely trying to add yet another article on a person who can be, on some not insignificant level, considered a "religious (potentially weirdo cultist schizophrenic?) figure".

I know, it's that eternal argument about Wikipedian censorship, but I'm willing to argue that Ted Jesus Christ GOD is just as worthy of a short Wikipedian article of approximately 10kb in size as anyone else already listed on Wikipedia's article of people who have claimed to be Jesus Christ (which I did not add, may I add)[4].

Maybe it's time for Ted to finally have his own 15kb article? He's listed on several already. I for one consider him to be just as valuable to Wikipedia as Matayoshi Jesus [5].

I'm just thankful that my article on Australian Green Tree Ants is still going strong.

Your humble servant,

Jeremy Bright 00:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jeremy Bright (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.

It's not really censorship as much as the fact that Neomphalida, Matayoshi Jesus, etc. have been documented in external sources, while the subject of this article has not. (Answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror and doesn't really count.) All of this is taken from WP:RS (reliable sources). Crystallina 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

TJCG himself in an open letter about his life and his short autobiography, confirming most of the article: [6]

TJCG on his goals, 40 days and 40 nights experience, and Satan's temptation with his saving by angels, which also demonstrates his writing style and details his theology, all on one page. Granted, hard to read, but chocked full of (way too much) information. Chapter 1 of 37 (as of today).[7]

Third party review of TJCG [8]. But I guess that doesn't matter. You can browse the other two, I'll cite them and others as sources now to appease any and all moderators.

Jeremy Bright 00:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you'd like to know that I fleshed out the article with extensive sources from Ted himself, virtually corroborating every statement. Sorry I neglected to do it before. Still working on it. Take a look if you want. Jeremy Bright 00:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, Geocities sites and official sites don't cut it. Danny Lilithborne 00:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it was okay to use self-published sources as long as its in conjunction with an article on the same person. Such as Ted's website for a Wikipedian article on Ted.

From WP:RS:

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following:

relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation or not contentious, such as basic biographical information. All information of a self-published nature should be looked at with a critical eye

Jeremy Bright 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

About self-published articles as sources: Please take it in context. WP:RS goes on to say:

it should also be:

• not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
• about the subject only, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• subject to verification by other sources.

Self-published material should always be reported as the POV of the publisher, and not as general fact, until such time as there is independent corroboration of that material. The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it, until then, it should be avoided.

Hope this helps.Mapetite526 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete due to lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. I concede that the article is surprisingly well written. However Wikipedia policies don't leave much uncertainty about what to do here. EdJohnston 04:39, 8 October 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.