Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Euthanasia (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 was keep. Noting that while there are a lot of SPAs involved in this discussion, there are also "Keep" opinions from a lot of regulars that appear grounded in policy, and nobody apart from the nominator has concurred about deletion. This is not an endorsement of the practice of canvassing, and there should be no prejudice against a further relisting in due course to try and get an opinion that hasn't been tainted by puppetry and canvassing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Euthanasia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Church of Euthanasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoaxish shock-value website "church" whose claim to notability hinged on "mentions" by other media rather than in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. Dravecky (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This could probably be merged into the article for Chris Korda. I am finding some mention for the site here and there, but there's not a huge-huge amount. Given that Korda's own article is pretty slim, I don't see why this wouldn't make for a good merge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Since Korda's article is also sourced only to a short blurb in Wired column of short blurbs and a glancing mention in the New York Times, it's probably a better candidate for deletion than merging. - Dravecky (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (relocated from talk page) It's my understanding that the question of whether the CoE is sufficiently notable to merit a WP article was settled in 2008, by the following comment: "This article should not be deleted. It has been the subject of serious scholarly attention, as indicated by the fact the Editor in Chief of the recently published (in 2005) academic encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, included an entry in the Encyclopedia dedicated to the Church of Euthanasia. I have edited the references to include this academic reference. The COE is provocative, but not satire or parody. They represent a serious strain within streams of radical environmentalism. The same goes for Chris Korda. As the founder of this stream of radical environmentalism, he/she is noteworthy. BZ, Univ. of Florida, Dept. of Religion. 6 Feb 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBradleyBayhorse (talk • contribs) 04:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)"
The alleged lack of references is another matter. Tokyogirl79's claim that "I am finding some mention for the site here and there, but there's not a huge-huge amount" misses the point. It doesn't matter how many sources reference the CoE *now*, what matters is how many sources have referenced it *in the past*, and whether those sources are considered sufficiently reliable. -- Victimofleisure (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The last AfD was in 2005 and Wikipedia's notability standards have tightened a bit since then. It's not enough to be mentioned in reliable sources. It's not enough for an organization to be listed in a directory of similar organizations. Notability must be proven by in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. (That Wired blurb on the Korda article is useful but on its own it's insufficient.) - Dravecky (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply 30 seconds with Google Books reveals that the entry of Church of Euthanasia in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Satire is far more than a mere listing; it's a full page-long entry. --Dylan Thurston (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Church of Euthanasia has been published in many periodicals of note, mostly European in origin. The Church also published its own zine in the 90's.Bombaybunny (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victimofleisure (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Comment: The Church of Euthanasia was very active in the Boston area in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I (Boston-based artist and arts educator Mark Hänser) will attest that it was a very active enterprise. Maria da Luz Fernandes, an arts scholar from Portugal, has provided me with the following information:
"The Church of Euthanasia article should not be deleted. I am an artist and academic with a published master thesis called “Tabula Rasa – Revolution, Subversion and Transgression”, published in January 2015 by the Faculty of Fine-Arts of Lisbon, the thesis is available for the public in its physical form in any faculty in Lisbon and in digital form anywhere around the world, through the faculty website: http://www.belasartes.ulisboa.pt/. This thesis includes an interview with the artist Chris Korda, the founder of the non-profit educational foundation Church of Euthanasia, which was one of the main topics of my thesis.
Regarding the question if the Church of Euthanasia is sufficiently notable, I believe there it is not necessary to present proof that it is active now, because most of Wikipedia articles are about people or events that have occurred in the past." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephos9 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There are two elements to an article's existence on Wikipedia: verifiability and notability. This nomination doesn't question whether the organization existed or that it did things, only that this activity did not draw sufficient in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources to prove notability. It's not a measure of worthiness or currency, only in-depth coverage. Mentions are not enough. Appearances are not enough. It's not a judgment of any sort, other that whether the subject meet's Wikipedia's notability standards. - Dravecky (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding the tightening of standards Dravecky refers to: user Bombaybunny correctly points out on the talk page that "The Church of Euthanasia has been published in many periodicals of note, mostly European in origin." The following in-depth coverage from major European newspapers should be quite sufficient to establish notability:
And we shouldn't overlook the far-right perspective: Prince Philip’s Malthusians launch New Age killer cults, Executive Intelligence Review, 7/18/1997, Mark Burdman and Roger Moore. -Victimofleisure (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My name is Maddy Weaver and I am a producer of a documentary in progress of the Church of Euthanasia. Deleting the Wikipedia page would be a detriment to this artistic endeavor because if it is difficult for a potential viewer to research the subject because Wikipedia believes the subject is unimportant, it would be difficult to make the case to that potential viewer that my work, which is to be solely based on the achievements of the Church of Euthanasia, would be worthy of their time. I would like to give you whatever sources you need to decide the Church of Euthanasia is a subject worthy of a Wikipedia page, but there have been many reputable sources already cited, so I am unclear about exactly what is needed. The problem could be that the Church was active mainly in a time where articles would have been recorded in physical newspapers, therefore the only online links to the reputable sources would be to articles that had been transcribed on the Church of Euthanasia website. If this is a problem, I have been using the original articles for research and could scan them and post them to the page. If this will not work, I would like an example of exactly what you need, I am sure I could furnish it.
  • What we would need would be in-depth coverage of the CoE in reliable sources like newspapers. If you can provide these, what we'd need would be things like the name of the article, the person who wrote it, the paper's name, and the date it was published. If you can do that, this would be incredibly helpful. These don't have to be on the Internet but we do have to be able to verify it, ie, that you can show a clipping if requested. As long as we have that, it's golden. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tokyogirl79, The sources given in my previous comment are all in-depth coverage from major European newspapers and available online; the links point to newspaper archives, not to copies on the CoE website. There's also lots more in-depth coverage that isn't online anymore, or never was online. Most of the in-depth coverage isn't in English, but there are exceptions, e.g. the Dan Burrows Boston Magazine profile (1997), the Icon (magazine) profile by the late Shari Roman (1999), and David Grad's extended profile, originally published in New York Press as "Eat Me: Rev. Chris Korda Dines For Our Sins" (1996) and subsequently republished as a cover story in The Phoenix (newspaper) ("The Four Pillars of Euthanism").
There are also patterns of sustained coverage over time, for example in the Dutch and German press in 2002 after outrage over the "I Like To Watch" video caused the CoE to be temporarily banned in the Netherlands. Here are some sources on that are still available online:
  • Comment: The Church of Euthanasia article should not be deleted.
Regarding the question of whether or not the Church of Euthanasia is sufficiently notable, I do not consider it necessary to present proof as to whether it is active now, since most Wikipedia articles refer to people or events from the past. But I will try to provide information and sources to fill any gaps that might exist in the present article.
I, Maria da Luz Fernandes, am an artist and academic with a published master thesis called “Tabula Rasa – Revolution, Subversion and Transgression” (published in the 13th of April of 2015, on the “FBA- Dissertações de Mestrado” in the Collection by the Faculty of Fine-Arts of Lisbon, available for the public in its physical form in any faculty in Lisbon and in digital form anywhere around the world, in the following website: http://repositorio.ul.pt/handle/10451/18155. This thesis includes an interview with Chris Korda. This topic was and is essential for the development of my academic work, as I continue my studies in a Doctorate of Arts. I can only logically assume that other academics studying the Church of Euthanasia and their cellular topics (euthanasia, abortion, antinatalism) would need a platform to follow their research, and the most common platform is, as we all know, Wikipedia. Therefore I believe deleting the page would disfavor of the academics and general public.
On August 8, 1997, an episode of The Jerry Springer Show aired about the Church. In this episode, “I want to join a suicide cult”, Springer interviews some of the most famous members of this organization: Chris Korda; Vermin Supreme, a well-known activist, the main subject of a released documentary, by Steve Onderick and Nina Paley, a world-wide famous cartoon artist. In 2002, Nina Paley also released a short-film entitled “Thank you for not breeding”, available in this link, wherein she explores the issue of overpopulation by interviewing Chris Korda, and includes footage of art performances by the same organization.
There is also a documentary currently being filmed about Chris Korda and the CoE, to be released in 2017, titled “Save the Planet, Kill Yourself”, directed by Steve Onderick. Quoting Onderick on the official facebook page of the documentary, they “will launch the Kickstarter on October first complete with a trailer, and travel with it from Portland Maine to Minneapolis, MN.” (9/19/2015, at 18:13). The fact that there is a documentary being filmed in this moment about the CoE should be more than sufficient proof of the notability of this organization, and their right to be represented in a Wikipedia article.
Sources (compiled with the previously suggested by Wikipedia user Victimofleisure)
Also
Cffmariadaluz (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a Wikipedia editor who, as previously noted, has known Chris Korda personally, witnessed the media phenomenon that was/is The Church of Euthanasia, and will vouch for the authenticity of Maria da Luz Fernandes's links and contributions, I think -- with all the additional material presented here -- deleting "Church of Euthanasia" as an article would be ridiculous and a negation of what Wikipedia's mission is all about. What's needed NOW is for a NEW article to be written that incorporates all the "new" source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephos9 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do not delete.

(Sorry, this Wikipedia editor can't currently remember her login password.) I'm bemused at this tempest in a teacup. Seems like the question of deletion has been raised by only one person, and the efforts of someone else to do a major overhaul/update on the page are actively prevented by the "flagged for deletion" status etc. Two things come to my mind when reviewing the situation: 1: the Church in question has had a significant impact and is cited in various types of texts [religion, sociology, social phenomena, environmentalism], both online and off, not least of which are cited in the post above by Cffmariadaluz. Saying that the phenomenon is no longer currently written about is like saying that Jonestown or the Tylenol Scare is no longer written about; it is still a phenomenon that calls for a reference, an explanation, a source of information. For example: every fall, according to City of Boston, about 250,000 new college students arrive in the Boston area alone, and they're going to see / hear reference to the Church. They would quite reasonably jump on Wikipedia to wonder "what's this 'save the planet, kill yourself' slogan from?" and that answer - among other reasons - is what Wikipedia is for. A reference. So citation and continued relevance: check. 2. Merging with the page of the individual who founded the church: that would actively cause ambiguity, rather than disambiguate. I vote against, as it would cause confusion. The founder seems to have a career in several fields (an inventor, a DJ, a musical technologist) and recently presented at a music technology conference. [1] Merging the pages would further confound rather than clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.114.11 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: User:71.192.114.11 is absolutely correct. It IS a tempest in a teacup, and merging pages WOULD further compound rather than clarify. There seems to be an agenda on the part of User:Dravecky here that conflicts with the mission of Wikipedia and, as User:71.192.114.11 notes, deletion would do a disservice to many curious new college students in the Greater Boston area. Nephos9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Remember to assume good faith and rest assured that my "agenda" (what little of it there is) is purely policy driven. In fact, I'm very much an inclusionist when a topic can be shown to cross the basic thresholds of verifiability and notability. This is an encyclopedia, not a freshman orientation guide for Boston college students nor is it a way to publicize upcoming documentaries. I don't care when the coverage is from, just that it's in-depth about the subject and from reliable third-party sources. Also, the article must be factual. If this is an art project, it needs to be called an art project. - Dravecky (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply No one ever said the Church of Euthanasia was/is "an art project". It is an entity that has influenced artists. And no one ever said that Wikipedia was an orientation guide for Boston college students and i specifically did NOT use the word "freshmen". My words are being twisted into some kind of syntactic pretzel. MY point remains that 1) The Church of Euthanasia exists, 2) It has existed for many years, and 3) Deleting the article serves no purpose whatsoever. Just because one might find the tenets of the CoE distasteful or shocking does not mean the CoE does not exist, nor that it does not have adherents. Someone on this thread mentioned "Jonestown as an antecedent. As a former writer for the Boston Phoenix, I can attest to the coverage the CoE was given as a serious enterprise. One can question the "good taste" of the content of this piece in the Boston Phoenix by Chris Wright from the December 20-27 piece issue [[2]], but the fact that it warranted inclusion in a publication available to the over 4,000,000 people in the Greater Boston area is testament to media, and by extension, popular, interest in the Church of Euthanasia. As a Wikipedia editor of 9 years standing, I will continue to vote AGAINST deletion. Nephos9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I, too, vote against deletion. Dravecky slightly misstates the notability criterion by repeatedly using the phrase "in depth" rather than "significant." The notability guideline is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." And "Significant coverage" "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It seems indisputable to me from the number and variety of sources mentioned in comments above that the Church of Euthanasia has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Therefore, "it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." Zenomax (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let’s recap. This AfD begins with “Hoaxish shock-value website ‘church’” yet no sources are provided for the allegations that the CoE is 1) a hoax, 2) lacking in value other than shock, 3) confined to the internet, and 4) not truly a religion. Even if these allegations were proved they wouldn’t necessarily preclude notability. The existence of “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject” has been proved, but this coverage isn't discussed or even acknowledged; instead new allegations are made that the CoE is “an art project,” publicity, etc. This begins to suggest bias however inadvertent. And regarding the exhortation to assume good faith: “The AGF guideline recognizes that one can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and thus urges caution in that area. Ironically, the very act of citing AGF often reflects such a rush to judgment, namely the judgment that bad faith is being assumed.” (AAGF) Victimofleisure (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a Wiki-editor and someone who has written about the press hysteria in The Netherlands about the Church of Euthanasia, I agree wholeheartedly with Victimofleisure, and I vote against deletion.Karin Spaink (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Though the organization is apparently not as active now it was clearly notable in its time. I don't need to repost the research already listed above which shows in-depth coverage, and it seems like this is a good case of Notability is not temporary. Though it may indeed be a "Hoaxish shock-value website 'church.'" it appears to be a notable one. Slamorte (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do not delete, do not merge pages. Michelle Glaros PhD is a Fulbright grant recipient, published author, and scholar. While teaching at the University of Florida, Dr. Glaros assigned her students to practice persuasive writing and analysis of arguments.

She offered a small number of places where her students could find people to hone their skills with, including the Church of Euthanasia. As you can imagine, university students found something at CoE to object to, and proceeded to make, and then invariably lose, arguments against CoE members and their logic and daring and imagination. The use of CoE by a scholar of good repute, in an official academic setting, is notable, as is the ability of her students to find and contextualize the Church of Euthanasia and its website and members via online sources like Wikipedia. Even if no professor is using the Church in this way at this time, the past use and attention within academia suggests retaining access to the basic information about this phenomenon. As a phenomenon, the students contacted Church members other than the Rev. Chris Korda, suggesting that a merge would inaccurately reflect this phenomenon and the record of attention to it.

Sources

(unrelated film work documenting Dr. Glaros's employment by the University of Florida and contribution to its academic culture)

  • [4], (the academic institution that saw fit to turn its attention to the Church of Euthanasia]
  • [5], (unrelated page documenting Dr. Glaros's continued professional contributions to communications, scholarship, and academic inquiry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B77:2760:C33:7CFF:3C2D:C9CC (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yikes. A heads up would-be and current participants: a flood of people who have made almost no edits to Wikipedia other than to opine in a discussion like this is typically taken as a sign of canvassing and tends to give experienced editors the impression that people must be canvassing because the article would not be kept if left to others to apply Wikipedia's guidelines (see also WP:SPA). As it happens, I agree it should be kept, but a word of advice: unless you're providing new sources that meet standards presented at WP:RS, you're not doing your position any favors simply by jumping in. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Thank you, Rhododendrites. That is a very helpful comment and clarification. I understand the concern about canvassing. Anticipating this, I am presently working with Maria da Luz Fernandes, who did doctoral research on the Church of Euthanasia, to create a new article that will address the content issues raised here and that I will edit to conform to Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Perhaps we can table further discussion until this new article is completed and Wiki-edited? I will post the rewritten article on this page, unless directed to do elsewhere by an administrator. Nephos9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nephos9: Anyone who has a conflict of interest regarding the subject should not edit the article directly. That means anyone with a personal or financial connection to the subject (you'll have to determine for yourself the extent to which that applies to you). The idea, as explained through Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and its counterpart the conflict of interest policy, is that someone with financial, personal, or other direct connection to an article subject can't be expected/assumed to write about that subject in a neutral way. The best way to work on an article when one has a "COI" is by using the talk page (Talk:Church of Euthanasia) to make suggestions, then let someone else implement the change. That said, the scope of this deletion discussion is narrower. The specifics of how it's written are less important than establishing notability, pointing to sources which constitute passage of the general notability guideline or the the notability guideline specific to organizations. To my mind, that's been done sufficiently here, but we'll see. The discussion goes for seven days, at which point an uninvolved editor determines if there is a consensus to keep or delete. I'll add the page to my watchlist in case you decide to post to the talk page and others aren't responding (it's not a subject I was familiar with before stumbling across this discussion). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up: Ah! Sorry, it looks like I got misread parts of the text above. I thought I saw disclosure of working with/for the church, not just writing about it. Nevermind the WP:COI business. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Thank you, Rhododendrites ~ our comments seem to have cross-posted simultaneously. Please advise re: your thoughts about my previous reply. Thank you. Nephos9 (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this, hoping that some more seasoned Wikipedia editors will weigh in. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment: As a scholar working on the subject of CoE, I consider the following data as viable for the databox:
Church of Euthanasia
(not to type in: Image) http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/graphics/coe_330x200.gif
(not to type in: Image description) The symbol of the Church of Euthanasia is represented by a greek temple with the Four Pillars
Abbreviation CoE
Headquarters Boston, MA. USA
Founder Chris Korda, Pastor Kim
Origin 1992, registered in the state of Delaware
Official website http://churchofeuthanasia.org/ (talk) 6:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think enough sources have been provided to show notability. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature seems like a pretty good source, and there's coverage in newspapers above, highlighted by Rhododendrites and others. I can understand the reluctance of some users to allow in hoax-ish articles, but this seems like an established parody religion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tokyogirl79. Kiwifist (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tokyogirl79: Just checking in to see if you're still thinking this would be better merged into Chris Korda rather than the other way around. As above, it looks to me like the opposite would be the case (i.e. sources about him are overwhelmingly about the church, including those currently cited). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I would say that this would be a keep for me, given that sources have been provided here by Cffmariadaluz and Victimofleisure. I have no opinion as to whether or not Korda would be merged into this article, but if sources independent of the church can be found, then it should remain separate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both articles and Do not merge. Chris Korda has independent notability from the Church of Euthanasia, and, as user “71.192.114.11” wrote, “merging the pages would further confound rather than clarify.” (at 20:27, 22 September 2015 UTC) I will try to provide sources of information to clarify Chris Korda’s notability outside CoE, as a well-known musician and developer of popular software.
Extended content about Chris Korda doesn't belong here

Chris Korda is the great-nephew of Hungarian-born film magnate Sir Alexander Korda, who was very prominent in the British film industry, as he was the founder of London Films and the owner of British Lion Films. Korda is the only progeny of prominent writer and novelist Michael Korda, editor-in-chief at Simon & Shuster in New York. [1] Korda has an acclaimed electronic music career, having released two longplayers and six singles and EPs. [2] Korda [6] toured Europe with his album “Man of the Future”, released in 2003 by the German electronic music record label International Deejay Gigolo Records. Korda then toured worldwide, using his own software to perform live, including the 2001 Sonar music festival in Barcelona. Chris Korda is the developer of more than five popular open-source software programs: Korda created in 2005 the VJ software Whorld, a open-source visualizer that utilizes math in order to create psychedelic animation and artwork. An example of the usage of this software can be found here. In 2006, Korda released FFRend, a “Parallel-processing renderer for Freeframe V1 video effect plugins”. In 2008, Korda designed Fractice, a fractal renderer.

Chris Korda is also an inventor of music software, such as Waveshop(2013), a bit-perfect lossless free audio editor, reviewed in several websites, such as The Windows Club, Hectic Geek and Betta News. He is also the creator of ChordEase(2014). This is a free software that is compatible with any MIDI instrument and essentially it makes notes easier to play. ChordEase was presented at the music and technology conference NIME in 2015. Chris Korda also developed software for the world's first color 3D printer [3].

  • Discography:

Longplayer

1999: Six Billion Humans Can't Be Wrong (DJ Mix; as Chris Korda & The Church Of Euthanasia; International DeeJay Gigolo Records)

2003: The Man Of The Future (International Deejay Gigolo Records)

Singles and EPs

1993: Save The Planet, Kill Yourself (Kevorkian Records)

1997: Save The Planet, Kill Yourself (Re-Release, International Deejay Gigolos)

1998: Sex Is Good (International Deejay Gigolos)

2002: I Like To Watch (Null Records)

2002: When It Rains EP (International Deejay Gigolos)

2003: The Man Of The Future (International Deejay Gigolos)

  • References:

non-modal music] Chris Korda for Nime, June 2015

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGDG_82Smxo

Cffmariadaluz (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This AfD is attracting an awful lot of WP:SPAs. Typically suggests WP:CANVASSING. May be worth noting Victimofleisure is also now doing some on-wiki canvassing (e.g. here). I happen to agree with the outcome the SPAs seem to seek, but this is always a bad sign. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:25, 4 October 2015 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Michael Korda married first wife Carolyn Keese in 1958, and had one child, Chris, leader of the Church of Euthanasia.
  2. ^ http://www.discogs.com/artist/18625-Chris-Korda
  3. ^ http://patents.justia.com/inventor/chris-korda
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Church_of_Euthanasia_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069231016"