Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quonsar

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quonsar

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism this is not. Instead, this is rambling babble without encyclopedic merit. I don't feel it's quite a speedy, though. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Dear Admin, Please allow this article to remain while more information on this subject is prepared for this entry. Please note that a google search on the subject of this article, "quonsar", yields over 30,000 hits which may serve as proof of the relevance and value of this topic. Thank you very much. More information to be provided soon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.210.197.2 (talk • contribs).

Of which 155 are unique. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

For context, "Flying Spaghetti Monster" has 500,000 total / 674 unique, and that's a far more restrictive search string (more words = more potential for misspelling or rephrasing) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable blogging deity. Holding this up to the FSM ruler, it is not in the same league, as Lomn pointed out... though I must admit I'm somewhat partial to FSM since I was touched by his noodly appendage.--Isotope23 20:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC).

So now he's just a blogger? That makes me almost want to go strong delete--Isotope23 00:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Dear Admin, If you expect every Wiki entry to be as recognizable as FSM, then you'll have a lot of deleting to do as people add articles about subjects which interest them but are not as widely known as the FSM meme and therefore cannot measure up to such an arbitrary comparison. The article in question has been modified to provide more information. Please do not assert your deletion powers today upon this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.210.197.2 (talk • contribs).
  • I don't see how anyone this article can interest anyone but its subject. --Last Malthusian 22:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Though it won't be deleted via AfD today. If you'd like to modify the article to add more information, you'lll have some time to do that. Jessamyn 22:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Not to be snide, but as you can see, we already have a lot of deleting to do because of non-notable articles. Anyway, I've offered FSM as a comparable benchmark, not as a hard and fast rule, and the community consensus will dictate whether or not the article is kept. I will note, however, that "Quonsar is suspected to have an astronomical IQ" is not likely to improve the article's quality. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• LOQZILLA SMASH QUONSAR-DELETING WIKIPEDIA EDITORS. QUONSAR-DELETING WIKIPEDIA EDITORS DELICIONS LIKE BAD CANDY. LOQZILLA NEVER VISIT WIKIPEDIA EVER AGAIN, EVEN AFTER VISITING IT AN DONATING TO IT SINCE THE BEGINNING* (preceding unsigned comment by 68.228.251.85 (talk • contribs) 17:22, October 12, 2005)

• Delete, vanity. --Last Malthusian 22:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable blogging non-deity. Would reconsider if notability could be established, or information could be independently verified. Having your own small cult is not in and of itself notable. Jessamyn 22:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as blog vanity. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per others above. — mendel ☎ 01:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. - EurekaLott 01:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per embarrassed quonsar. 03:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. --Wedge 02:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• if jessamyn gets hers, quonsar should get his. (preceding unsigned comment by 151.202.74.144 (talk • contribs) 02:10, October 13, 2005)
  • Note that Jessamyn Charity West only barely snuck by its own VfD, even with an assertion of notability in an industry publication and mentions in Wired magazine, DNC press credentials and publication history. — mendel ☎ 19:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• What's the point of deleting this, it's not like there is anyone else or any thing that has the same name. Why do you waste time on deleting this when there are so many stubs that need to be fleshed out. (preceding unsigned comment by 132.239.50.20 (talk • contribs) 13:26, October 13, 2005)
• Keep and flag for cleanup. I don't think anybody would claim that the article should remain in its current, rather silly form, but quonsar is a notable personality on several of the web's more notable sites. Jacobw 12:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. 207.216.186.96 19:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Pl£As£ do not modify eet. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.