Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Number Shitting Bear

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 del. mikka (t) 03:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Number Shitting Bear

Even though it survived a nomination for deletion here I'm putting this article up for deletion again since there is no reasonable claim to notability and this appears to be just another internet animation. It also appears that all information on the subject is vague barring the little bit of info that you can obtain by going to the animation website. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Delete forgot to add right after nomninating and figured that the nom on it's own might not be counted as it's own delete vote. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per previous Vfd, useful for anyone looking for examples of popular internet memes. Kappa 01:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Popular" is debatable with this one. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• While the previous VFD had no consensus on keeping or deletion, from looking at it, it is just another flash cartoon online. Delete. Zach (Sound Off) 01:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known enough to be called an internet phenomenon, albeit a minor one. Stlemur 01:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Phenomenon? Cult status? 320 Google hits? I think not. Wikipedia is not a repository for all the endless junk that floats around cyberspace. -Splash^talk 01:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it's reasonably well-known (not a given in this case), that doesn't make it notable or encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 02:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Splash Derex 03:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for all the reasons this nomination survived it's previous VfD attempt.--Nicodemus75 03:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Splash, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Kappa. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since this article doesn't appear to be about a particularly notable subject. It's just some web animation that a few people apparently like. Make an article when something important happens involving it. Tuf-Kat 06:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please like liast time this is a notable article on wp:ua Yuckfoo 06:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Splash. While "survived its previous AfD" is useful data (because the previous AfD discussion may contain persuasive arguments), it does not really constitute a reason in and of itself to keep unencyclopedic articles around. Nandesuka 11:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Correctly claims notability, and with 770 Google hits (plus a handful on Usenet), it's more deserving than some of the garage bands we've kept. Owen× ☎ 12:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 770 hits is nothing for an internet phenomenon. Plus, like I said more than half of them are repetitive. Note that this applies particularly to things with fewer than 1000 hits in the first place: Google reports unique hits in the first thousand, so Wikipedia starts out with millions, but appear to finish up with a few hundred. This is because Google isn't checking through the other 113 million. If a topic starts out with fewer than 1000, then the unique search finds them all. This has 320 useful Googles, and that is nowhere close to what an internet phenomenon should have. -Splash^talk 13:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You are correct, it is only 320 hits. My mistake! However, since it is surviving the test of time, and has (slightly) more merit than most nonsense sites, I'd rather keep it. Being a Number Theory guy, though, I am possibly biased. :) Owen× ☎ 13:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
      • To say it's surviving the test of time is a bit of a misnomer I think, the only thing it's done to "survive" is not get AfD'd again until now. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
        • In "surviving the test of time" I meant generating interest for four years, as seen on Usenet and such, not just surviving the previous AfD. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Marginal delete. I don't think this is notable, but I could be convinced otherwise, I guess. Everyking 13:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete i'd never heard of it, and if longcat is so terribly worth deleting, this sure as hell is KeiKusanagi 13:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per longcat. A page for every amusing forwarded email in the world? Vizjim 15:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa. I've heard of it and a replication of it is a good basic project for newbie programmers. ;) splintax ^(talk) 15:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• If people keep adding drek like this, Wikipedia is going to quickly turn into a repository for every stupid java or flash animation that somebody creates and then posts on the web. That being said, this article has survived one AfD and does generate a fair number of Google hits. While my personal opinion is that it is useless drivel, I will have to say Weak Keep. --Isotope23 15:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think that it survived an AfD is a reason to keep it. There was no consensus last time, as it was a fairly contentious "vote" then too. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this must be the first time I have seen someone call an article "drek" and "drivel" and then vote to keep it. A previous no-consensus AfD is hardly binding either way in future, surely? -Splash^talk 19:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: "Internet meme" = "it got forwarded." Silly, transient epiphenomenon. Let it survive for two years, retain popularity, and break out into non-Internet usage. Right now, the only people who hear of it are already on the Internet, where they can see it. How is this answering questions or expanding the contexts of information? Geogre 17:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a minor internet meme. 320 unique hits is pitifull for something that can only claim it's notability on the net. WP:NOT a programming guide, nor does survival of a past AfD garuntee current notability. Especially on a medium as transitory as the net, what may appear to be the next big thing one day, in retrospect can appear nothing more than a very minor flash in the pan. --Icelight 18:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that we're even talking about it at all, when the page itself dates from 2001, says something about its "flash in the pan" status IMO. — Stlemur 18:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Between then and now we haven't talked about it all, though. -Splash^talk 19:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not "surviving the test of time", it's abandoned -- last updated in 2003, promising to move to a domain which is now owned by a squatter. And it's no meme -- there's no body of derivative works like you'd see with goatse, badgers, or All Your Base. The bear is dead, let it rest. — mendel ☎ 19:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as trivial, nn Internet meme. MCB 19:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons as in the earlier no-consensus vote when this was VfD instead of AfD. No indication of increased significance. Not mentioned by either Republicans or Democrats in 2004 elections. (US-centric bias!!) I agree with Mendel and MCB. Show me any impact on the planet except letting people waste their time. Barno 19:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 20:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's apply some modus tollens to this. If the Prime Number Shitting Bear is a notable internet meme, it would have thousands of google hits. The Prime Number Shitting Bear does not have thousands of google hits. Therefore, we can conclude that the Prime Number Shitting Bear is not a notable internet meme. — Phil Welch 20:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn meme, nonsense. Voting "keep because I've heard of it" is no more acceptable than "delete because I've never heard of it". User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An "internet meme" with only 320 Google hits isn't successful. For comparison, various permutations of AYBABTU get upwards of two million hits. --Carnildo 21:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn foolishness. Fawcett5 21:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Eric119 22:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Carnildo. Bishonen | talk 22:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, 59% delete votes (11 keep/19 delete/2 merge) in the previous VfD does not make a keeper. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Splash. Coll7 01:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Marginal Delete If it truly were notable I'd think the article would be able to actually describe the notability. Maybe in a wiki devoted to web humor, but not for a general purpose encyclopedia. Caerwine 04:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Never heard of it myself. And I get forwarded all manner of nn garbage. Sabine's Sunbird 04:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete totally insignificant internet meme. This is just a flash animation, not a phenonemon. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete - if someone really cares, they could merge it into a List of Minor Internet Memes, where we could then argue about it there. But there's no way that it needs it's own article. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's hardly badger badger badger --TimPope 11:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per TimPope, Tuf-Kat, Carnildo.Dpbsmith (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with wanton lust. A sizeable majority votes to delete this nonsense and people claim it's an obvious "keep"? Laughable. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would want to delete an article like this. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • ...what about all the reasons listed above with delete votes? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "nn" is not a reason.  Grue  17:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, none of the reasons given above is a reason for deletion according to the deletion policy. Minor branches of a subject that don't merit an article on their own are merge candidates. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep again and again. Don't let it turn into another GNAA.  Grue  17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. It should be possible to speedy this kind of page. Martg76 18:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as before. -Sean Curtin 00:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and hang it's organs on the Main Page to warn away others of it's kind - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per previous VfD. No sensible reason to delete. —RaD Man (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The previous VFD is no consensus, not keep. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not every single flash animation in the world is notable. --redstucco 09:34, 20 September 2005 (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.