Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jello Belt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 talk 12:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jello Belt

Seems to be either an unknown term or a neologism created by the article. Google search for the term finds 119 hits, of which all of the first 20 and about half of the remaining are Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk 3 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)

  • Delete for the reasons listed above. Also, shouldn't it be the Jell-o belt anyway? A google search for "jell-o belt" turns up a few pages referring to the jell-o belt, but its not much, and still appears to be a neologism. Maybe mention it in the bible belt article? --Phroziac (talk) 3 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
  • Delete: uncommon. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
  • Delete , sigh. I like this one, especially with the lovely map, but neologism. Too bad. Maybe it can live on at BJAODN. --Mothperson 4 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
  • Citations: "“The Work and the Glory” has been able to expand outside the jello-belt only because of its success within it."[1], ""Saints and Soldiers" producer Adam Abel was shown saying, "It has only shown at one festival here in what would be termed as The Jello Belt. The rest of it is on the west coast and east coast, and then in the midwest as well. So, there's been a large reception to it." [2], "Great minds thinks alike, Velynna, or we are both unoriginal? I don't know, but living in the Jello Belt, you see alot of jello used in some great and not-so-great ways." [3] "Location: Armpit of the Jello Belt" [4], "That is a sobering thought! i guess future vacations will NOT include the Jello Belt for this family!" [5] jengod July 4, 2005 01:59 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's also "A whole chapter of their cookbook is dedicated to Jell-O recipes, including a map of the Jell-O Belt, stretching from Shelley, ID, to Snowflake, AZ."[6] from 1993, so it may not be common, but it isn't all that new. I hadn't heard of some of the other 'belt's in the box at the bottom before, either. Also, "Jell-O Belt (Mormon culture region), 217" appears in the index of the Wiley book "Mormonism For Dummies".[7] Niteowlneils 4 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)
    I belive that the reason these 7 citations have been quoted in their entirety is that there are barely any proper uses of the term on the internet, as a search confirms. — Asbestos | Talk 4 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
  • I say KEEP, even if you have to rename it to something like - "Mormons and Jell-O." Mormons and Jell-o get a huge number of google hits. It's a notable subject, not to mention fascinating. Put a hyphen in Jell-o, keep that map, and retitle it "Jell-o belt" if necessary (i.e. the "so-called" Jell-o belt). --Mothperson 4 July 2005 15:20 (UTC) Just keep -- Mothperson 6 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
    If you want to write an article on Mormons and Jello, go right ahead. That's very different from an unknown neologism, "The Jello Belt". Even with the hyphen, 'Jell-o belt' gets precisely 14 Google hits. — Asbestos | Talk 4 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
  • Jeezum crow. It was only a suggestion. I don't write about Jell-o, as I think it's disgusting, so, POV problems. --Mothperson 4 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I sounded harsh — that wasn't what it was meant to be at all. — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)
  • Delete - silly. — Pekinensis 4 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)
    • Why is everyone here so intent on being humorless?! Bah! And in further defense of the poor, misunderstood Jello belt :), I think that the fact it's in Mormonism for Dummies is a pretty good proof that it's at least as culturally meaningful as all the other silly junk we have on here. Pokemon geeks, I'm looking at you. ;) jengod July 5, 2005 07:05 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think it has now been established that this isn't a neologism. Does the belt really extend that far into Southern California? --Aranae July 5, 2005 07:27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Term does not have an enormous Web presence, as most google hits are wiki or wiki mirrors, but it is clearly not a neologism. Moreover, keep as Jello Belt rather than Jell-O Belt, as the former is clearly the far more common form. carmeld1 6 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether or not it's technically a neologism, a term with less than 50 actual hits on Google doesn't belong here. 199 7 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since my original question about this jello and Mormons business on the reference desk I've seen enough to be convinced this is an established - if rare - term. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tiny number of real Google hits. Madd4Max 20:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - As it stands, the treatment of the term in the article is far too colloquial for me to consider it to be of "encyclopedic quality". However, this can be corrected. Furthermore, I do not see this as an exception to other relatively esoteric articles on Wikipedia that have become mainstream over time such as the Heavy metal umlaut and Exploding whale. The article can still be expanded, and we can give it a chance to do so. It is at minimum missing these things:
    1. A description of its importance as a stereotype for a particular group of people
    2. Its influence on marketing strategies within the region
    3. Its role as a form of identity, either as in a colloquial or academic context
    4. Its influence on popular culture and general perception of Mormons by the American public
    Given that all of these can be added to the article in an encyclopedic manner, and that references for these things can be researched in material not on the internet, I will advocate that we give the article a vote of confidence, and a chance for a few Wikipedians to come by and fix it up. For starters, I will volunteer myself to expand the article, and submit it to peer review once it has reached a reasonable level of quality. If it turns out that this decision still results in an unacceptable article for Wikipedia, then so be it. I will place the article on VfD myself if it comes to that point, but I believe that will not happen - of course, provided that the article as it stands survives this current VfD. For these reasons, I'd like to sincerely request a reconsideration on the part of the "delete" votes already cast, and to simultaneously encourage more "keep" votes as well. --HappyCamper 07:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I second HappyCamper's motion, and I volunteer to expand the article, too. --Mothperson 15:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not a topic which lends itself to being measured well by Google hits. I'm with Jengod. Denni☯ 21:41, 2005 July 10 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.