Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conner

John Conner & Resistance for Christ

Conner is founder of Resistance for Christ which was "Regarded as a hoax by many in the begining". (I agree it's likely a hoax). But, "has become a large movement within the Christian community in the USA." This group has discovered information "so disturbing and polarizing, that they often never pierce (sic) the main stream news mediums (sic) due to editiorial and political influences". However, that would not explain the zero google hits if this were a real group. Anyone heard of this? Only one anon editor. Update, see also the related Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Resistance Manifesto Michael Ward 07:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete while I find amount of Google hits to be a somewhat dubious reference for deletion, this article has no supporting documents, I've never heard of it, regardless of my previous comment I cannot find anything about them on Google and the user is anonymous, the IP only having posted an article relative to this one. Norg 07:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have come from the future to Terminate this article. Starblind 14:44, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
Bad joke (the article, I mean). Delete. Edeans 17:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, probable hoax. Megan1967 00:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, yep, that's the name of a character in Terminator, article provides no means of verification or evidence of notability, could be a hoax. Wyss 01:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I made this mistake too, initially, until I checked. The character is John Connor (and he's not in The Terminator, only Terminator 2 et seq.). Uncle G 01:40, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  - He's referred to quite a bit in the first Terminator movie as well, but the character doesn't appear onscreen. Wyss 02:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Sarah becomes pregnant with John during the movie. Kyle falls in love with Sarah, and they do it. Skynet sent the Terminator back in time to kill Sarah, but by doing that Kyle was sent back by the humans and made Sarah pregnant. It caused what it wanted to stop. Luigi30 03:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Ahem! Ahem! Uncle G 13:39, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  - Maybe so, but a spoken reference onscreen can be transcribed either way. "Conner" gets Google hits too, in reference to T2/T3. [1]-Willmcw 22:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - "Connor" was the mother's name given in the credits, though, for those who paid attention. (-: Uncle G 20:35, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
Delete. Probable hoax. DJ Clayworth 05:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax, and poorly written one at that. -Willmcw 21:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Also, the creator of the article has been blanking the VfD notices, and this discussion. -Willmcw 05:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Likely hoax and vanity. Blanking VfD is a plus to my vote. --Death phoenix 18:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE BELIEVE IN THE LORD? http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=gF4IXDmAOg&isbn=0967346630&itm=1 THIS IS A REAL TITLE REGISTERED WITH BN.COM [BOWKER.COM] AND BOOKS IN PRINT. (68.7.217.249 according to history Uncle G 11:53, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC))
- That link shows a future publication date, March 2005, by a publisher with 18 google hits. Michael Ward 06:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- We are not discussing the book. That was Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Resistance Manifesto, whose conclusion was Delete. We are discussing "John Conner", the self-styled pseudonym of the author of a non-existent book, and "Resistance for Christ", a non-existent religious group. Delete. Uncle G 11:53, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
Conner, the author of the manifesto claims he is "an Agent of the Lord" sent to fight Satanism perticularly in pop culture. His publicity stunts have included sarcastic ambush style interviews with various individuals from the Mormon Church and the FreeMasons to protests on Hollywood Boulevard. Despite Conners sometimes bizare antics, the manifesto contains historically accurate information and an in depth analysis into the ideologies of the globalists agenda creating the New World Order. Conner has penetrated the Alan Colms Show on Foxnews Radio, the Michael Savage Show, the Paul MacGuire Show and more. (68.7.217.249 according to history Uncle G 11:53, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC))
Delete'. Agitprop/vanity. Quatloo 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes intended for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conner 2

Delete per nom. with extreme prejudice.Tombride 23:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax, the website is www.the resistancemanifesto.com. The book is real, it's called The Resistance Manifesto it's selling for $14.95. DO NOT DELETE.

Please DO NOT DELETE. This is a factual website revealing the truth about 911, just like Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen, Ed Asner, many government officials, etc. who are speaking out about the Bush/Blair/Sharon involvement in 911. This is historical and exposes that evil elite sponsor evil politicians to perform evil deeds to keep the masses in confusion while the evil elites and their collaborators steal the masses lives and wealth through wars they orchestrated while funding both sides in the conflict.

Do Not Delete. While I will agree that John Conner has a tendancy of being more than a little outspoken. At times his antics can make a person wonder if he is truely dedicated in what he believes in...or if he is just having fun while exploiting popular conspiracy theories for sake of noteriety, or if he is just a straight up looney tune. For all I know...it could be that he is any of the above. Now, something I do know is that if you take a look through his book, The Resistance Manifesto....you will find fact after verifiable fact. I challenge anyone who believes his information should be deleted to read his book, go through it subject by subject....and prove it to be a hoax. Better yet...ask him for the resorces in which he gathered his info...and verify his research. I'm sorry to have to be the one to say this....but...his book is factual. Don't take my word for it....Look into it for yourself. If you choose not to...Who are you to delete anything? Just because you have chosen not to be informed on the truth...does not mean you can be ignorant in your proclimations about him. Universal Truth is not measured by mass appeal. He has spent countless nights researching his data. Can you say the same?

Do Not Delete. John Conner fights for the rights of every man. He's progressively exposing the secrects of the illuminaries. He has his own character, but once you know him you'll propably end up seeing him as a good guy trying to help us all and especially the poor fellas. Research first, condemn after.

Keep it's a legitamit article (re www.theresistancemanifesto.com) and the irresponsible people who voted to delete should, in future, bother to research subjects before passing judgement. This is all too often with these people.

Do Not Remove, I own the book The Resistance Manifesto and refer to it often. I have heard John Connor call in on multiple am radio talk shows.

DO NOT DELETE. We need to give populations good informations.As mass media dosen't tell the truth, dosen't mean we don't want the truth! Maria

DO NOT REMOVE! JOHN CONNER IS GREAT HE CALLS SEAN HANNITY AND ALAN COLMES FREQUENTLY TO CULTURE JAM THEM! HE MAY HIDE HIS REAL NAME BUT HIS ACTIVISM IS LEGITIMATE HE FIGHTS FOR YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ANTI BUSH what more can you ask for?

KEEP John Conner and The Resistance Manifesto are cited in several Wikipedia Articles and is a legit topic DO NOT DELETE Here is one example from WIKIPEDIA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Boots_Are_Made_for_Walkin%27_%28Jessica_Simpson_single%29 And the first 10 or so votes for deletion are invalad.

"Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.
  2. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability.
  3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please leave the following out of Wikipedia:

  1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Wikipedia:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals; but strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Relatively unimportant people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project." I apologise for the cut and paste oddessy, but all the information was taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT and unfortunately, it seems like the article in question has no place in wikipedia.

KEEP ARTICLE DONT DELETE I take it someone at Wikipedia is a homosexual and is offended by parts of this article. This article is written objectively is made to approach a neutral point of view. The NYPOST, SmartMoney Mag, Rollingstone, and all the other publications which are cited in this article must be less important than wikipedia, since wikipedia seems John Conner isn't a newsworthy person.