Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon

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 JERRY talk contribs 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon

The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable neologism with no sources, with a bit of original research as a topping. — Coren (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. All right, we'll do it your way with discussion and all. Zero notability (just because the creator is notable doesn't mean this is), smacks of fancruft. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep provided it is improved: It does get a lot of Google hits (although mostly blogs) and it is sourced back as far as RA Wilson. It is mentioned in the article on Novelty theory. Of course, it is exactly the type of specious nonsense that we kick out of Wikipedia every day with a casual "db-nonsense", but I fear that it is notable nonsense and we may be stuck with it. What we do have a right to expect is an article that explains it better, without any OR, and some better references. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per a mixture of both of your arguments. If improved with more reliable sources that are independent of the subject I'll change my mind.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per DanielRigal. Ford MF (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Part of a comedy routine. Not an actual attempt at a serious measurement of anything; something off the top of some guy's head. Individual comedy routines do not rate separate articles. Herostratus (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough to merit its own article, and all sourced content could be merged into Robert Anton Wilson's article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget. 12:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thoughts: If we keep the article then I think the graph should go as that is sort of OR. If we delete the article then the content could be moved into Robert Anton Wilson. I still think it is a weak keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia has no deadline. Articles with no consensus should be closed as such not relisted immediately. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete – At best merge into the author’s page. Could find no information on Google Scholar where you would expect a book of this type to get some credit and no hits on Google News where I was hoping to get at least one or two reviews. Regarding a general search on Google plenty of hits but all blogs, Wikipedia mirror sites and such which are not creditable or verifiable by my standards. Shoessss |  Chat  14:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to Rudget... you can do several things. Keep. Delete. Merge. Redirect. No consensus. Don't worry about what people think about your decision. Mandsford (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Shoessss. STORMTRACKER 94 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Shoessss. Fails WP:N. I found nothing from a reliable source in Google, Google News, Google News Archives. Noroton (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS EJF (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A non-notable comic theory Mostlyharmless (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per arguments above. "The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon"? Daing but that would be a great name for a band... Grutness...wha? 00:29, 7 January 2008 (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.