This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, personal essay, no sources, no potential to become encyclopedic since the topic itself inherently presents a non-neutral point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lmao. ~~ N (t/c) 00:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete KrisW6 00:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and i have to go shower now. Nandesuka 00:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - would have voted keep, except for its poor use of apostrophes :p --Doc (?) 00:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and commas. Delete. Barno 17:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I needed a laugh --Dysepsion 00:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essay-stub. Flowerparty 00:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research --Lomedae 01:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not much of a plot. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. same reasons as Dpbsmith. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I didn't know Ian Paisley had become a Wikipedian. :>) Capitalistroadster 02:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Kill it. And delete the article. Celcius 02:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need for conspiracy theorist articles on wikipedia. GregAsche 02:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Nateji77 02:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Nickptar. Slac speak up! 04:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inappropriate use of apostrophes cannot be tolerated Avalon 04:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It has been listed as a copyvio, but I'd just like to add my delete vote to make sure an article is never written on this title. It's inherently POV and totally unsubstantiated. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But are copyvios eligible for BJAODN? HipHopOppotomus 09:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a copyvio and I've removed the notice and reverted the article. The declared source of the copyvio is a set of online lecture notes that makes one brief reference to an "Anti catholic book alleging Catholic plot for domination in US," but does not contain so much as a single sentence matching anything in the article. Due to grammar and general bad writing I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the article is a copy of anything published by a print publisher. If Lacrimosus just wants to make the offensive material less visible he should make some other kind of edit. And a courtesy, major edits made during a VfD really should be noted in the VfD discussion so that people joining the discussion later know that they are discussing something different from what was being discussed earlier. As I write this, the article is back to its original state except the correction of one typo. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJADON - awesome. Proto t c 11:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless it's all true, in which case I'd like my portion of the world now, please. I suppose we could link this through to the Jack Chick page instead. HopperUK 11:57:37, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
• Delete, as completely un-encyclopedic and largely ridiculous POV. --Bhadani 13:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've replaced the entire content with the line "See: Anti-Catholicism." Most of the above discussion relates to versions of the article similar to this one. If I'd been thinking more clearly I probably would just have made the article a redirect to Anti-Catholicism instead of dragging it through VfD, but as long as it's on the road to deletion let's continue, as "Catholic plot for world domination" is not anything that anyone is likely to type in and hence not very valuable as a redirect. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't do this. We need to be able to evaluate the article more or less as is was when proposed. --Tysto 16:49, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
    • It's in the history, and you can view it by clicking on the link I provided. Here it is again:

Original text Dpbsmith (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Original research. --Tysto 16:49, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• Delete — WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine", although it's tempting to redirect to mwahahahahaha... ;) — RJH 17:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Oh no, we have been discovered! :-) Psy Guy 18:32, 19 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.