Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brick monster

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 of the debate was Speedy deletion for nonsense. enochlau (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brick monster

I can find no reference to an actual brick monster; delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day--Hansnesse 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • BJAODN. Jawz 02:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Royboycrashfan 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This Brick Monster article is very explanatory and should be kept in existence. it explains a theory on what causes people to fall over bricks slightly sticking up! You're just giving into the apavementists!—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.225.32.94 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Should not be deleted.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.225.32.94 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because some people choose to believe there is not a monster that causes mischeif of this type does not mean that they should ignore theories. Why not delete the page on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism just because it may not be true? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Nidiron (talk • contribs) 21:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I have nom'd this article for speedy delete as WP:NONSENSE since the author has decided to delete AfD discussion. --Bugturd Talk 03:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: This is not nonsense. I am a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the phrase, "Brick Monster" is used in the same way as this article discusses it. While some might consider the post to be stupid, publication must start somewhere. This is why I co-authored the article. If you do not believe that people actually discuss the brick monster, listen to this: over 120 UNC students on the popular website facebook.com believe in the brick monster, according to enrollment in the "groups" section of the page. This, of course, is a minimum number of students, because this is the number of people who clearly know there are groups for people who believe what they do. There could also be other people out there that do believe, but do not know that they are part of a larger group of people. Thank you, Matthew, Co-Author and UNC-Chapel Hill Student—the preceding unsigned comment is by 152.23.192.126 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Publication must begin somewhere, but not here. --Agamemnon2 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google says less than 1,000 hits (650some to be more exact). While this is a narrow test, it doesn't establish notability. One could even call this a neologism. Jawz 04:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with nom, after the VfD discussion was deleted.. speedy delete. Jawz 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment (again), Facebook has tons of usergroups with hundreds of members. Joining one doesn't mean that they all believe in the same thing; it is like myspace where some people join just for the fun of it or to have a zillion group listings on your profile. While I consider this article to be nonsense, there is always the avenue of trying to include "popular" (yes, this is probably POV dangerous) facebook groups on the Facebook article. My 5 cents. Jawz 04:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

just because Facebook has a popular group doesn't mean the article is notable for its own article on Wiki.

You are correct. A Facebook comment or group may not be justification for the article, but in the same right, Wiki has an article about the Flying Spagetti Monster. Belief in "pastafarianism" has no basis in reality. Does it make it wrong for the author of that article to have posted it. How about Christianity? The religion has basis in fact, in the sense that we know a man existed and was executed by Roman guards. Other than that, there is more faith in it than there is fact. Should we then delete all references to Christianity? How about other religions. When you start drawing lines, they better be concrete and for good reason. I challenge you to find many differences between a belief in a "Brick Monster" and any mainstream religion's belief in a G-d or pantheon of gods. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 52.23.192.126 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments using ~~~~. Jawz 05:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Took the liberty of adding it to BJAODN already. Ashibaka tock 05:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as WP:NOT a publisher of original thought, and authors behaving badly. Not speediable, since it unfortunately meets none of the criteria. Also, I took the liberty of restoring the comments deleted by User:24.225.32.94 for everyone's viewing pleasure. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The author's comments notwithstanding, WP is not a place in which original research is published.  (aeropagitica)  06:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for restoring the comments that were deleted. The original AfD Discussion was not deleted by either myself or my co-author, Nidiron. I understand the concern that this page is not valid, but the concern seems based in illogical thought patterns. If people can put articles about religions, spoof religions (i.e. Flying Spagetti Monsterism), or general beliefs, this article should be allowed on precedent. Looking into the situation further, the article clearly states that there are multiple theories behind the idea of the Brick Monster, and one of these ideas is that it is not real. If you have suggestions about changing the entry, I would be happy to take any advice you might be willing to give, discuss it with my co-author, and correct any basic problems. It falls into the "legend or myth" idea, I suppose. I would gladly make comment at the beginning. This would allow people to look up what a "Brick Monster" is, but it would let them know that the actual existance of such a creature is actually under debate. --Mneidich 07:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. non-encyclopedic original work. Nice, but patent nonsense. Mariano(t/c) 08:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
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.