Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ku'rapha

Ku'rapha

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 --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a hoax. - Eagle^talk 16:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if real, it's non-notable; WP:NOT a soapbox. Sandstein 16:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This is a viable belief and plausible religion. There is no information contained within that would confuse or skew the intended audience's opinion on other matters. This article is not dis-information. It was carefully written to include the structure of what Mr. R.L.Davis is siting as his religion. This is not a hoax, as it does not question or change any current information known as fact. Thank you, Rev. Jason E. Brown
- The fact that it does no damage is insufficient qualification for inclusion. It has to be notable Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the least, this is unverifiable. Based on the discussion below, WP:SNOW would seem to apply. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC); amended 18:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE This is my belief. I Verify that is it true.

Ku'rapha is very real.

And to those say otherwise, try to explain that to myself and the others that meet at my ku'rapha home group gatherings. When we see lives changed daily because of the words and support of our spiritual brothers and sisters.

Yes, some people tell me that I can't believe something that they refer to as nonsensical new age crap.

But wasn't one of the reasons people came to america was to have the freedom to worship their God in the way they saw best, and is it so wrong that I want to share with others the joy that I found in Ku'rapha?

I don't want to press my beliefs on anyone. In fact part of Ku'rapha is equality, and the includes other religions and belief structures. Ku'rapha is about providing a different way of looking at the world. And providing support for those in need.

Thank you all for you time in reading this.

~R.L.Davis

Delete unless some strong evidence of verifiability and notability can be presented. --InShaneee 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete and myself stating that I believe this, does not make it notable??? I'm sorry but it seems like you are telling me that my beliefs are not valid. Early Christians were put to death for believing something that was "crazy", but look at Christianity now. Don't put to death what you do not understand. My belief is most defiantly valid, and the FACT that I believe it makes it so. ~ R.L.Davis (User:Rdsvn01) (Second opinion by this user. Gazpacho)
Delete, we don't let people create articles about their own deep thoughts. Gazpacho 22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: You say that, but could not the same be said of many of the other beliefs on this site? Besides... these aren't so much my "deep thoughts" as you call them, as they are the beliefs of a body of people. "religion is defined 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." My belief.... OUR belief is OUR religion. Thus making it Valid. and I'm sorry that you are unable to accept that validity. ~ R.L.Davis (User:Rdsvn01) (Third opinion by this user. Gazpacho)
- Yeah, yeah, we get it, you don't want the article deleted. Show us where these ideas have been published in any form outside Wikipedia or your own web site, and where people have acknowledged the publication. This discussion isn't about "validity", it's about independent verifiability and encyclopedic significance. Gazpacho 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - :DO NOT DELETE: I don't think that it's wrong for this to come up for discussion, but I do think it wrong that people say that it's not a valid belief when that are MANY people who belief this to be truth. I started a study group in late 1999, with a group a people who wanted to find the truth. And decided that the truth was everywhere and no where at the same kind. The name Ku'rapha came about because of our groups rituals of tattoos and piercing. Ku - Chinese for pain. and Rapha - Hebrew for healer. for in the pain of the Tattoos and Piercing, we found spiritual healing. not unlike many African tribes do. After much debate, we decided to write out the something to post it on our favorite internet website. Wikipedia.org. We thought that the Wikipedia community would be most open to us. and help us in our quest for global legitimacy. I pray you keep this Ku'rapha page up in Wikipedia's online database, in order to show others that it is okay to think for yourself. to question the things you've been taught growing up. For the truth to set you free, you most first know that truth. and how can one find the truth, if you do not question everything? you can't. You don't have to believe my beliefs to be the way to God or Enlightenment. Please Except them as OUR Valid beliefs. ~~ Russell L. Davis (User:Rdsvn01) (Fourth opinion by this user. Gazpacho)
      - Right, but how do we verify your claims? Is it unfair for us to ask for some way to verify what you say? You understand the need for verification, right? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Verify to me that the Angel Moroni came and spoke to Joseph Smith. you can't. All you can say is that 'some guy' said this, or 'some gal' said that. Am I not also 'some guy' who is able to make statements as well? The validity of those statements were made on someones spoken word. Now I might not be speaking these words aloud to you, but I'm saying them never the less. The religious belief of Ku'rapha is valid, and notible enough to be placed on Wikipedia. ~ RLD
        
        The idea is not to verify the truth of your beliefs - it is to verify your claim that "many" people hold them. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Anyway, how many people actively follow ku'rapha? And can you verify that number, or some number like it? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know what a number will prove, being that you are so set on disblief. that and i can't prove to you the number. i mean, all i have in a word. and in my belief my word is enough. the strong stand against our belief shows that world really isn't as open minded as we believe it to be.... to answer your question on number. 4 groups ranging from 8 to 15 memembers each, and we're been growing fast.... so do whatever you want. delete, don't delete, it doesn't matter. i'll just repost this once we get our website up. and again.... and again.... i'll repost it add info... report it add info. until you stupid people are happy. i understand that the enemy was blinded the eyes of the unbeliever, and i understand that i can only do the work of a man. but nothing can happen outside the will of the Observer. so if this is the will of "o" i'll will accept it. ~RLD

- Don't delete. Inspiring. Please allow freedom of speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.154 (talk • contribs)
Delete Per WP:V. I have no idea whether this is a total crock or not, but it's not verifiable, and if true must have a pretty small following. Fan1967 00:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete per above Rev. Po-Jay The size of the following should not be in question. The only question at hand is "does this purposely mislead the users of this reference tool?" The answer to this question is NO. It is an informative look into the Ku'Rapha belief. This is merely a start. There are followers of this religion. Remember, there is a separation of Church and of State. Our Constitution has ensured this. Based on this separation, law cannot declare someone's beliefs to be unconstitutional, unless they violate other people’s freedoms. This document provides no extremely controversial information. This document harbors no ill-will to other people or religions. This is merely an honest attempt to document a theology that is in its infancy. To delete this is to stifle R.L. Davis and his followers. Is it asking too much to allow this document to survive? I could spend a few hours and point you to many article within this tool that provide dis-information, so why kill an article with real merit? (user's only edit. Gazpacho)

Comment Wikipedia is not the government, so the constitution is irrelevant. The only relevant questions for listing in Wikipedia are: Is it verifiable? No. Nobody except the person or persons posting here have ever heard of it. Is it notable? No. Same reason. That's all. (By the way, this is at least the third unknown religion this week.) Fan1967 02:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all religions are "unknown" until someone makes them know. i don't know about those other two, but this one is very real. ~RLD

Response It may well be very real (the other two also, or at least one of them). However, it's not verifiable and not notable. Do you really believe there should be an encyclopedia entry for every belief that has a few dozen (or few, or a few hundred) adherents? Fan1967 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Yes, I really Believe it. Besides, there is so much more Trivial information on Wikipedia than this entry about a REAL religious belief. Also, there is the Heaven's Gate (cult), with only 39 Members and they are on here (yeah, i know they were a bit "crazy" but that's not the point). I don't agree the number of members as reason not to list a religion. Even Jesus Christ only started out with 12 followers, granted Wikipedia wasn't around then, but I think you made my point about number members not being the real factor. ~ RLD(User:Rdsvn01)

You seem to keep concentrating on the fact that your belief is "REAL". Wikipedia does not have a rule about "real". It has rules about verifiable and notable. Heaven's Gate was in every newspaper and on every broadcast outlet in the world. You have been documented or reported where? Fan1967 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to Verify it? You are most welcome to join one of our meetings. There are many people there who are more than willing to talk to you about Ku'rapha as our combined faith. When are you going to be in Phoenix, AZ? You can join us for a 3F group. (don't worry, our 3F groups are just so we can invite our friends to an event that doesn't cause them to feel uncomfortable. So you can meet us and see that it is very much real, That way you can be a "VERIFIABLE" source. But, Po-Jay already did that for me. I'd Like to note that Po-Jay isn't an active Member of Ku'rapha. But he has joined us for a few 3F groups. (fyi: 3F stands for "Fun, Food, and Fellowship", and 3F groups are a great time for Ku'raphites and Non-Ku'raphites alike)... Myself and a fellow Brother are currently working on a Booklet/Track. If you'd like, I could send you a copy, via US mail, once it gets back from the painters. Your call on that one. ~ RLD (User:Rdsvn01)

Please read the policy on verifiability. Also, it would help to pay attention to what constitutes a reliable source for verification. I am not a reliable source. Neither are you (no offense) or Po-Jay. Fan1967 18:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you want me to send you the booklet? I don't have any ONLINE sources. but I have prints ones. And besides... back to the example of Joseph Smith, "All you can say is that 'some guy' said this, or 'some gal' said that. Am I not also 'some guy' who is able to make statements as well? The validity of those statements were made on someone's spoken word. Now I might not be speaking these words aloud to you, but I'm saying them never the less. The religious belief of Ku'rapha is valid, and notable enough to be placed on Wikipedia."

Something else, are telling me that if i just go out and make a webpage and put ku'rapha stuff on it, that would be a reliable source of info. a Published Webpage? if so, that's pretty ridiculous, but i can do that...if that will convince you. ~ RLD (User:Rdsvn01)

You didn't actually read the policies, did you? Fan1967 18:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... so what i understand is that you will NEVER believe me, or NEVER agree for this document to be placed on Wikipedia.

Side Note. We are currently in the process of filing the paper work for The Ku'rapha Brotherhood to have a non-profit organizational tax ID number. once that goes through, i still don't you all will leave it up. the US government isn't considered a "reliable source", you know with the whole "weapons of mass destruction" never being located in all..... yeah, some reliable source they are. :) ... Point is, I'm just going to accept that you are just a close minded person. and i feel sorry for you. I'm done arguing the fact that it should not be deleted. I still feel that it should not be deleted, but i accept that I'll never convince you. ~ RLD (User: Rdsvn01)

This deletion is nothing personal against you or your religion - Wikipedia has fairly well-established guidelines about notability and verifiability. Verifiability requires published sources of some kind - click on this link: WP:V. The policy is non-negotiable - it's not meant as an insult against your religion, it's meant to protect Wikipedia and make it a more reliable source. Please try to understand that this is nothing personal against you - you seem like an impassioned person with strong beliefs, and that's admirable. It's just that until your religion is better-established and has published sources that document it and its membership, we can't include it here without violating the consensus rules of the community. Personally, I can promise you that when your faith gets recognition in any sort of established media source that meets WP guidelines, I will vote "keep" on any article you make about it. That's a promise. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I also struck invalid votes (repeated and anonymous). In your last comment, do you mean "Do not delete as per yourself"? - Eagle^talk 03:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but that's a bit confusing. Gazpacho 06:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that, Eagle. I don't think Gazpacho and Po-Jay are the same person. i mean, i know Po-Jay, he is a good friend of mine. but i don't know Gazpacho. so i think you might be mistaken in that they are the same person and that Gazpacho was quoting himself. ~RLD (User:Rdsvn01)

Do Not Delete: I've heard of this and practice it myself. - --Hawkeye216 19:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, Hawkeye... I'm not sure who you are, but i'm sure you know how to get in contact with me. Thanks for the words. Let me know who you outside of this forum. Hope to see you at the Next 3F group. ~ RLD
- Then please provide information to meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- yes i have... many times over now, but the rub still remains. it states that the article needs "credible references" and "credible sources" but never defines what "credible" is. I consider myself credible, thus making me a credible reference and/or credible source. It also states that "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources," but never does it say that it NEEDS reliable published sources. Though still "reliable sources" is defined by having some credibility to it. now going back to what i stated before, i consider myself CREDIBLE. Whether you wish to accept that is up to you, but in no way violates the "Reliable sources" or "Verifiability" policies set forth by Wikipedia. ~ RLD (User:Rdsvn01)
- SIDE NOTE: how long does this process take? i mean, when will it be deleted or not deleted? i grow weary of this argument.
- ... which argues in favor of Kinu's WP:SNOW argument. My guess is there is zero chance of this article being kept. Fan1967 22:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- seems unverifiable mumbo jumbo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.231.26 (talk • contribs)
- Do Not Delete(like you don't already know what i want)... I think that the Moron Church is full of "mumbo jumbo", but that doesn't keep people from believing it that church's teachings. You say that Joseph Smith's meeting with the Angel Moroni is "Vefifiable" but he was the only person who was there. and none of you have ever spoken with him. i'm here now, telling you that these are my beliefs, and that mine and my follower's beliefs should be aloud to be heard. and left for others to read about. if that's what you call "mumbo jumbo", so be it. ~ RLD (Fifth opinion by this user. Gazpacho)
  - Russell, until you come up with sources for the existence of this religion, other than yours and other users' say-so, you are wasting your time. Gazpacho 02:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't really see much point in continuing the discussion. According to Russell's myspace blog ([1]) he's having fun with this. Fan1967 02:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete per above Rev. Po-Jay Okay Gentlemen, we are splitting hairs. While it is true, this is being discussed outside of the "Wikipedia" confines, it by no means should give anyone the impression that it is a joke. This is a serious topic. I find it very entertaining that a website such as this, would even question the validity of that which cannot be validated. This is a Theology Gentlemen. R.L. Davis' Theology has as much right to be here as any other. I will tell you something else that may confuse or infuriate you... I am an Ordained Minister and according to YOUR requirements to prove validity, my nod counts as validation. Should I present you with the Doctrine of my Ordination? I can very easily do so. I find it so hard to believe that a tool, such as Wikipedia, that has historically not "always" been exactly factual, cannot let an religion document its existance. I am not a practicing member of this Ku'Rapha, but I totally support it's motive and physical existence. Let this be the end, my brothers... I will leave you with a re-itteration. I am a Reverend and I say it is valid. That makes it valid, according to your own rules. BTW- I am Rev. Jason E. Brown (re:earlier posting) as doctrinated on my papers. (Sixth opinion by same user.)
- Please just read this: WP:V. That's wikipedia policy. This is nothing against your religion, and it's nothing against your personal credibility. It's just that we need a reputable published source documenting your religion and its membership. As I said above, if you ever get such documentation, I will happily vote "keep" next time you make an article about Ku'rapha. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE!! do you realize that you are asking RLD to prove all ov the worlds religions! he stated that it is based off of all beliefs. so here is the thought- untill all of you jackasses can prove that Jesus really did rise form the grave and Moses really prted the Red Sea, and spoke to a burning bush and can proveid this proof and its not hearsay. you have no proof of your beliefs eother. lets face it thats all they ar is your beliefs nothing more.being that i am a trans-channeling intuitive medium, and my guide is a Pharaoh from ancient Egypt and has first hand knowledge of the MISSinterpritations of the bible, here is a clue- its symbolic NOT literal- it was the REED sea he alledgedly parted not the RED sea. my advise to all of you re-read EXIDUS and do it with an open mind.68.225.200.180 13:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Prince Pharaoh[reply]

Again, this is a misunderstanding. We're not asking him to verify his beliefs - we're asking him to verify the existence of a religious organization created around those beliefs. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've already established this article and AfD is a joke (and an unfunny one at that), as well as a WP:POINT violation, per [2]. WP:AGF has gone out the window. Please don't continue to feed the trolls, and just let the closure process take its course. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last statement... sorry.... here is the deal, Ku'rapha is my belief. And it is very real to myself and others.... but i totally agree with the fact that there is NOT enough information to have it placed on Wikipedia. it's just that i enjoy to argue. even when i know i am wrong, and will lose. you all will be seeing ku'rapha again as a entry... BUT i will be prepared with more "reliable sources" to back myself help. and when that time comes, i hope to see you all here again. Thank you all for the great time. And sorry for causing all this so called unfunny joke. (which i also disagree on ;] ) so until we all meet again. good-bye ~ RLD (User:Rdsvn01)

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.