And it's a bad one. J. Stephen Conn.

It was created in 2006 by a user named Jstephenconn (T-C-L-K-R-D) , strangely enough.

I guess you, uh, never saw this list.

Yes I did, also wanted to point out what a worthless bio it is. Short, heavily tagged, and with two links that are both dead......you'd think that Pastor Conn would hang around and try to fix it.....

I take it "they", meaning the craziest of admins, still won't let anyone delete messes like this? Conn seems somewhat non-notable. Although he does seem to have a personal website, plus a blog and a Facebook.

Also odd, that his BLP doesn't mention his fondness for the Confederacy.

And his right-leaning tendencies, and a willingness to insult the other side. If I were more of a wiki-pedian, I'd put if up for AfD.

Meanwhile senior pastors like Eugeneacurry don't hesitate to send famous atheists to AFD.

Scott MacDonald prod'ed it, mercifully. Since the man of the cloth hasn't edited since late 2009, chances are he won't notice until after it is deleted. Then hilarity shall ensue, praise be unto Him.

This is hardly vanity. It's definitely an unremarkable person but it's not written in such a way that makes it vanity.

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

What an exciting 15 minutes! (Not.)

I go to this page and indeed find a completely non-notable individual. Not sure what a PROD will do, since just up and erasing the damn thing looks pretty much uncontroversial. But I am no expert in Wiki-bureaucracy. Praise be onto Bob!

I then further check on this Eugeneacurry editor, mentioned above.

Instant hilarity!

For example, we have this on his/her user-page:



Now, once I click on item [6] here, I remember where I heard of this bozo: he's the guy that JeffB (the WR manifestation of jbholden1517) supposedly "threatened". He's also the guy who called the Internet Police, and then made a big splash about it on-wiki. An instance of a legal threat that goes unpunished by the wikipediots!

So I was not surprised in the least that Eugeneacurry has not removed the supposed threat from his own talk-page.

Clearly, he's wearing it like a wiki-medal.

The remainder of his comment about how he needs to get the Christ Myth -- and no doubt his thorough destruction thereof via proxy of his favorite reads -- onto the main-page of the project is little more than his declaration of being a POV warrior. Can the wiki-admins not perceive the foul stench? What more do they possibly need? And holy shit, these fucks treat domain experts in the physical sciences like garbage and here we have a religious processional being handed the keys to an article on a subject that offends the Christians?

Oh yes, the article: what the project is all about. Right.

From the lead/lede:



I check into all these references, and the vast majority are from people who have, well, let's be polite and just say these individuals have invested a great deal of their own time, effort and very existence based on the idea that this Jesus character also existed. The ones who did not appear to be in this category are actually "unknown". The bayesian prior is so strong though it is easy enough to conclude that they too are just religious basket-cases too. But hey, maybe there are a few real academics who can disconnect their irrational side from the rational in this area of "belief"?

The remainder of the article is just a litany of the same. People who believe in the "Historical Jesus" are given accolades for their unflagging belief, and those who (supposedly) question the very basis of the Christian religion are relegated to the unwashed armpits of hell, next to "holocaust deniers". (Oh yes, to deny the physical existence of Jesus is equivalent to denying the murdering of six million+ people. There are mathematical proofs!)

I haven't checked yet, but my guess is that Jesus myth theory exists only because of problems experienced by the religious nutcases getting a sufficiently negative slant at the other articles about this subject.

A prediction can be made here: most of the "scholarly" sources will be from believers and reviewed by believers. The sources against will be from non-believers, but reviewed by believers. The basic problem here being that finding a non-believer to review this material honestly will be difficult, it not impossible, because most of the impartial reviewers will not only be non-believers, but they basically don't give a shit -- life has much more to offer these people -- and, most critically of all, are aware of the religio-poltical minefield this area is.

So what do you say, Wikipediots? Why not give the good pastor his FA status? Just give it to him! Let the main page be emblazoned with this tripe. Just make sure it is a Sunday, though, so the guy has 'good material' for a sermon.

What the heaven do you have to lose? Your credibility? Your honesty? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Do you suppose it's the same J. Stephen Conn who has visited all 50 states and all by 91 counties (3142 visited) in the US?

FWIW, the entire article is true, err "verifiable". The books are on Amazon and have a smattering of reviews scattered across the internet. The newspaper column is real too, though I can't verify the 60 papers bit. There's all well more than enough material in various news sources to establish notability by the typical standards and to "verify" everything in the article.

As an interesting fact did you know that he left the Church of God due to a dispute over swimming rules? Yup, don't hear that one too much. He seems like an interesting and perfectly nice fellow and just as "notable" as anyone else on Wikipedia.

Very good. Almost inevitable. In retrospect!

• Yes, it's the same fellow who visited all those places.
• He's probably notable. Delete and start over, 'cause he built it to promote his website.
• No, he's not very nice. Read further down in his blog.