Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the spoon

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 delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. Sorry, dude, the spork wins. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the spoon

No, Wikipedia is still not for things made up in school one day. Putting some terms together and grabbing a website does not constitute a valid parody religion. While I'm sure imitation is the highest form of flattery, a Flying Spaghetti Monster this is not. >Radiant< 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Stormie 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not appear to be in any way notable; NFT. - Rjd0060 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: It has as a basis a single blog entry? Pretty foolish. I could do that. NFT. - Psinu 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, made up at school one day. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: made up on a blog one day, non-notable. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Unlike MOOism (AfD discussion), this one is not documented by anyone other than its creators, and is not written about in books. The only web page that I can find discussing it cites this Wikipedia article as its source. There are no sources at all on this subject. An article on this subject would be unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 03:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as Web content with no assertion of importance. —Caesura(t) 06:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely non notable. Alberon 16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing in there says this is notable. And IMO, a blog is not a reliable source. 1ForTheMoney 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete The content is fine; the only problem is the lack of documented sources. Yes, someone made it up, but that can be said of all parody religions. Harrison27 (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Saying that no sources exist is an argument for deletion, and a strong one, irrespective of what boldfaced words you put in front of it. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I guess you're right. A blog is not a reliable enough source. Harrison27 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless of course the creators can add links to, say, three newspaper articles about the subject. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2007 (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.