For similar reasons as Gallery of obese atheists (see Conservapedia:AFD Gallery of obese atheists). It appears to have no encyclopedic merit and is offensive to Christians who, for whatever reason, are overweight. Additionally, it seems that this page was created as a troll/parody of Gallery of obese atheists; regardless of the merits of the latter article, creating a parody article in the encyclopedia is not appropriate. GregG 19:33, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- I disagree. I have quite vocally protested the Gallery of obese atheists, but the article has been supported by the CP admins, so I can only assume that being offensive to fat people is acceptable here. The GOA article implies that fat people are atheists - it's only fair to imply that fat people can be Christians (or Jewish or... etc.) SharonW 19:55, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- I created this page. It is not a "troll/parody" of "Gallery of obese atheists". It's a demonstration that if one is valid here, the other is too; and, I hope, that neither is valid. They're both stupid. CasparRH 21:52, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- However well-intentioned, this grandstanding on article pages seems inconsistent with Conservapedia's mission of building a trustworthy encyclopedia. GregG 23:56, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- That's Conservapedia's mission? You would think otherwise from looking at lots of the stuff here, not just these galleries. CasparRH 18:03, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
- I think both pages should be deleted. They are insulting, petty, inconsequential and highly unencyclopedic. They are hurtful and dismissive of both overweight people and atheists(or christians). I don't believe that this sort of content should be on any website that uses the words 'trustworthy' or 'encyclopedia' in its name (there is a lot of other stuff like that here but I mean that ideally there shouldn't)Cmurphynz 05:27, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
- However well-intentioned, this grandstanding on article pages seems inconsistent with Conservapedia's mission of building a trustworthy encyclopedia. GregG 23:56, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- I created this page. It is not a "troll/parody" of "Gallery of obese atheists". It's a demonstration that if one is valid here, the other is too; and, I hope, that neither is valid. They're both stupid. CasparRH 21:52, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
Santa Claus
Should Santa be included? He is fictional, so he is not actually a Christian (or of any religion, for that matter). AndrewTompkins 22:40, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- I guess you haven't heard of St. Nick. --Jpatt 22:50, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- I have heard of St. Nick, and he is the model for Santa, not actually Santa. In addition, he lived 1700 years ago so any representations of him are bound to be inaccurate. The truth is, we will never know what St. Nick looked like, and either way it is immaterial to this discussion because he is not Santa Claus. Santa is fictional, so he is not a Christian and thus by definition does not belong in this gallery. AndrewTompkins 22:56, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- You'll need a consensus to revert an addition from an admin. Besides, people associate Santa with the Christian holiday. This page was created by CasparRH , the gallery was cut and pasted by SharonW, an original work of AugustO. At this point, it will be kept intact or dumped in its entirety.--Jpatt 23:05, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- Fair enough. AndrewTompkins 23:16, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- The round and ruddy, white bearded ho ho hoing Santa Claus of America and (unfortunately) the rest of the English speaking world is the brainchild of the advertising company for Coca Cola in the thirties or forties. Europeans and discerning English speakers use a far more slim, noble and ascetic looking figure in their decorations.AlanE 23:35, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- That's actually an urban legend: Coke didn't invent the popular image of Santa but they did popularize it. AndrewTompkins 23:36, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- The round and ruddy, white bearded ho ho hoing Santa Claus of America and (unfortunately) the rest of the English speaking world is the brainchild of the advertising company for Coca Cola in the thirties or forties. Europeans and discerning English speakers use a far more slim, noble and ascetic looking figure in their decorations.AlanE 23:35, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- Fair enough. AndrewTompkins 23:16, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- You'll need a consensus to revert an addition from an admin. Besides, people associate Santa with the Christian holiday. This page was created by CasparRH , the gallery was cut and pasted by SharonW, an original work of AugustO. At this point, it will be kept intact or dumped in its entirety.--Jpatt 23:05, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
- I have heard of St. Nick, and he is the model for Santa, not actually Santa. In addition, he lived 1700 years ago so any representations of him are bound to be inaccurate. The truth is, we will never know what St. Nick looked like, and either way it is immaterial to this discussion because he is not Santa Claus. Santa is fictional, so he is not a Christian and thus by definition does not belong in this gallery. AndrewTompkins 22:56, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
Yes. You may be right. But it is still the American version of Santa that is shoved down the throats of everyone each Christmas. I agree with August on most things, but I disagree with that rotund figure being representative of a Christian. AlanE 00:07, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
- "At this point, it will be kept intact or dumped in its entirety." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point of a wiki is that contributions can be edited. We could decide that this article is appropriate, but Santa Claus is not an appropriate entry. Part of a wiki is that contributors allow their "writing to be edited mercilessly," as the text below the editing box states. GregG 23:03, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
- I am not going to say you are wrong. At the moment, this is not discussed at the unmentionable website, which prevents me from flushing the page. It's 2 for removal of Chris Cringle, 1 for staying. The 1 is an administrator that has overruled removal for the time being. Feel free to add to the list.--Jpatt 23:15, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
- "At this point, it will be kept intact or dumped in its entirety." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point of a wiki is that contributions can be edited. We could decide that this article is appropriate, but Santa Claus is not an appropriate entry. Part of a wiki is that contributors allow their "writing to be edited mercilessly," as the text below the editing box states. GregG 23:03, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
Please delete
Parody articles have no place in a credible encyclopedia. --James Wilson 12:53, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
If this gets deleted, Gallery of Obese Atheists should get deleted too. --JohnnyLurg 13:57, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
- I think not. That was written by an established Administrator. This was made by someone trying to parody that contribution. --James Wilson 14:15, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
- Are you saying that anything put up by an established administrator is, ipso facto, appropriate and worthwhile? CasparRH 16:23, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
- Most likely, since they're most familiar with site policy. I see you just created another parody article. These are really not necessary. Please cease the nonsense: I see you made good contributions and that's why I only placed a 10 minute sanction on your account. --James Wilson 16:57, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
- Not a parody, a response. CasparRH 18:03, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
- Most likely, since they're most familiar with site policy. I see you just created another parody article. These are really not necessary. Please cease the nonsense: I see you made good contributions and that's why I only placed a 10 minute sanction on your account. --James Wilson 16:57, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
- Are you saying that anything put up by an established administrator is, ipso facto, appropriate and worthwhile? CasparRH 16:23, 15 July 2012 (EDT)