Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Spaghetti Monster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yek401 (talk | contribs) at 23:23, 22 August 2005 (→‎[[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Note to admins: This nomination was made on 06:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC).[1]

  • Keep FSM is an important internet meme, but unlike many of the others cited, it's not just a joke. FSM is a direct response to the movement to teach Intelligent Design in schools. As noted in the article, "U.S. President George W. Bush and U.S. Senator Bill Frist have publicly supported the teaching of non-evolutionary theories". The ID debate is a serious issue in America today, and the FSM is a humorous but sincere response to that debate. This article clearly explains the issue & deserves a place in the Wikipedia. 67.171.35.234 22:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -It is an internet meme that requires explanation, and Wikipedia is exactly the kind of place to provide that explanation--my submission to World Book Encyclopedia was rejected. While it may be offensive to some, its parody of religious faith is impossible to argue against--just like religious faith! Fancy that. And it is timely; a deft, modern arguement in a debate which, for some reason, didn't end at the Scopes Monkey Trial. You want to delete it? Well, my Jesus bobble head just told me that you shouldn't. –Gelatinous.Cube (talk · contribs)'s only edit 16:58:46, 2005-08-22
  • Keep--128.218.15.83 17:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FSM may be junk to some people but IMHO it is something that will be around for quite a while and needs a "no rubbish definition". The article is well written, explains the subject matter and thus should be kept. If it is to be removed then there should be an article which covers this subject in a broader context. –Astrolox. 14:10:46, 2005-08-22 (UTC) Astrolox (talk · contribs)'s only edit
  • Keep The great thing about the Wikipedia is that you can find quality information about topics that might not be otherwise found in a regular Encyclopedia. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is now its own entity that will have a life on the internet, just like I_kiss_you. It is important that this piece of history be recorded, and the Wikipedia is the best place to do it. -- unsigned vote by 24.84.192.212 (talk · contribs); user's first and second edits
  • Keep To remove this yet keep other similar nonsense by "organized" religions would be hypocritical. 67.10.88.183 (talk · contribs)'s only edit
  • Keep At one point, this would have been just a joke; now, it is a joke with a rebellious undertone. I believe it is worth keeping. –Cory M. 11:54:34, 2005-08-21 (UTC) CoryM (talk · contribs)'s fifth edit
  • Keep It is important, funny and great. --64.54.250.128 05:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC) 64.54.250.128 (talk · contribs)'s only edit[reply]
  • Keep Comes under freedom of speech and opinion. Edward301 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Edward301 (talk · contribs)'s eighth edit[reply]
Ummm, while I'm in agreement with the keep vote, Edward, you're aware that neither freedom of speech nor opinion are criteria for keeping an article on Wikipedia, right? Jason 03:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: If not for this article I would not have had the pleasure of knowing the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- unsigned vote by 71.116.187.184 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • KEEP: The flying spaghetti monster is real. What's all the fuss about? I vote to keep him -- unsigned vote by 66.158.195.32 (talk · contribs); user's only edit

--64.54.250.128 05:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Part of internet culture, mainstream-ish media and a valid piece in the creationsism versus evolution debate. Especially the million dollars on offer for proof that this is not the godshead, as a counter to the $2500000 on offer for proof of evolution. -- unsigned vote by 80.213.187.73 (talk · contribs); user's fourth edit


  • Keep - important not only for comedy but for a viable argument about religion as a whole. Encyclopedic and verifiable. Just make sure it stays encyclopedic and doesn't go making silly statements as we've seen in some of the recent vandalism. -- unsigned vote by EatMyShortz (talk · contribs)
  • Keep : deletion kind of makes the original author's point. This page is just as viable and worthy as any other page on religion. -- unsigned vote by 81.86.124.195 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep And bring back clock spider. -- unsigned vote by 81.86.124.195 (talk · contribs); user's third edit
  • Keep This is an informative article about an actual phenomenon that is clearly under attack by religious idealogues, who keep trying to delete it. Should be locked for a period until these vandalism attacks cease. -- unsigned vote by 66.108.220.146 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep. Is a legitimate political satire movement. - grubber 19:08, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Keep or, failing that, merge with intelligent design. This seems to have attracted some mainstream attention and therefore is probably notable. If it's forgotten in six-months then we can simply have this discussion again and merge it with something or delete it as appropriate. That said, I'm far from sure the current edit conforms with POV guidelines. That's easy enough to change, though. Disillusioned kid 21:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kansas and the nation are at risk of brain death if we don't encourage skeptical thinking. Wikipedia plays a great role in this endeavor.
  • Keep This article documents the creation of an "illegitimate" religion. The subject may be satirical (which I don't believe is grounds for deletion to begin with), however the events surrounding and leading to its inception are actual. One researching this period of time who manages to stumble upon this page (or any given article in tangeable press) will discover the circumstances that brought this joke to life and furthermore won't be mislead into thinking FSM is an actual deity. The article is clearly prefaced in this way. The FSM phenomenon actually took place and it deserves a home in Wikipedia. Jack Driscoll 21 August 2005

Removing this article would be blasphemy. --69.19.14.17 22:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC) DoomPenguin 21 August 2005[reply]

  • Keep: You can't hide the truth forever! (18:35 pacific, 21-08-05)
  • Keep The FSM has been mentioned a lot on the internet lately, and Wikipedi is (and IMO 'should' be) an obvious place to come for more information. This kind of cultural information is one of the main strengths of Wikipedia. — B.Bryant 01:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason for this to be deleted. --fiberglassdolphin 22:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Fiberglassdolphin (talk · contribs) has exactly one edit. This is it.
  • Keep: Without a doubt! Definitely notable. Meets all criteria for a Wikipedia article. Funny too. Sunray 01:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The "Flying Spagheti Monster" by itself is pointless. The fact that it is significant in that it is a part of the debate between religion and evolution being taught in schools. The religion is a persuasive arguement, but notable. Because of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we will probably see the monster appear again in later debates. --Zoop 01:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The FSM article should be kept, but in a manner that is encyclopedic. Wikipedia has various articles on other Internet meme's, why should this be treated any differently. Let the external links point to the sites that have more humor, let the wiki article reflect it's history and coverage as an internet meme.Cfpresley 02:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article makes clear that it's satirical. Keep for the same reason that the Invisible Pink Unicorn has an entry. Both satirical religions deserve to be noted. --taliswolf 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article looks good, and has become a pretty popular meme. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 04:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep StrongUser:Indolering
  • Strong Keep. Wikipedia has become an astonishingly entensive and accurate reference to internet culture, as the articles for Invisible Pink Unicorn, Gay Nigger Association of America, and Animutation articles can testify sstrongly to. I've seen things that have gotten less media attention and more controversy kept, so why delete this? --TexasDex 05:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article is of good quality and is noted appropriately as an internet phenomenon of fictional nature.
  • Keep. Notable, sources available. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • At the moment, even with a lot of discounted votes, it looks like this is going to be kept. Might I suggest it to be listed in Wikipedia:Unusual articles alongside Invisible pink unicorn? - Mgm|(talk) 07:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has become an important figure in the ID debate. As such, it is useful to have an article which describes Him. August 22, 2005 Ortcutt (talk · contribs)
  • Keep It's a popular meme (As of this writing "flying spaghetti monster" yields 56,900 hits in Google) and it's certainly less silly than List of songs about body parts. -Hessef 08:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many articles on Wikipedia about seemingly trivial things, like All Your Base or many video game related articles. If we keep those then we should keep this. ____Ebelular 09:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now For the time being, the Flying Spaghetti Monster seems pretty notable as a parody of Intelligent Design, and has notable similarities with Invisible pink unicorn. Perhaps we should return to this issue in a year's time, and ensure that it is still notable. I should stress that the wikipedia article should be an 'encyclopedic' articles about the concept, and not a piece of fictioncruft Bluap 10:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - itz a matter of fredum ov speech! (sorry, just wanted to say that once...). Uh, seems notable enough by the previously accepted standards of "weird but widespread Internet phenomenon", though I guess it is rather quick. Shimgray 10:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FSM is a net phenomenon and part of ID history. CatMoran 11:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Basically, ditto for the above. Like the (shudder) dancing baby, it is a legitimate 'Net phenom. Just make sure that it is accurate.
  • Keep The article seems well written, especially after the rewrites, and I feel it is encyclopedic. ++Lar 14:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Removal of information decreases the relevancy and therefore the value, of Wikipedia. One of the promises of an open source archival system is its ability to encompass information not traditionally found in an encyclopedia, to be a knowledge repository, and by doing so becoming more useful and relevant than the limited scope of a traditional encyclopedia. The function of the moderators should simply be to ensure that such information is described and categorized properly, as is done here, with the description of the FSM as a parody religion. As such it can only serve to increase knowledge, not obfuscate or confuse. This entry, as current August 22, 2005, should be retained. JLF, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Google gets 124,000 hits for Flying Spaghetti Monster. Invisible Pink Unicorn gets 65,100. Both are relevant, and for the same reason. The article qualifies on "noteworthy" --KillerChihuahua 14:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because notable, as voiced in other votes. Sietse 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable parody, especially in regards to ID debate. Eclipsed 15:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because otherwise I'll declare a jihad on the unbelievers who delete the FSM. :: DarkLordSeth 15:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unconvinced of the FSM's encyclopedic nature. The 59K google hits seem to be from blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. (Obviously I was skimming, not checking on all of them. Change my vote to Keep in the event a newspaper article or significant web magazine pickts it up and runs with it.--Tznkai 16:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep: [3] Looks like FSM has attracted the attention of some journalist in a notable paper or two.--Tznkai 18:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need this and other similar satires documented so that others can read about them in years to come. This article is a part of history. Just today I saw a bit on the news about the evolution vs. creationism debate and thought "I should email them and tell them about FSM." Someone needs to archive this. Wikipedia is a perfect place to do this!
  • Keep Wikipedia is far more than a standard book encyclopedia, and articles such as this are uniquely found here. Besides, if we're going to include Densa, FSM is of the same nature. I've recommended this article to my Mensa friends. Simesa 17:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Stbalbach 17:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful page written with no POV. It was useful to me after reading about the FSM phenomenon in the UK's Guardian newspaper. Equant
  • KeepThis is a popular net parody and should be documented. However, I think the article should focus more on the rationale behind the phenomenon, the concept, and cultural impact vs just the "tenets" and "beliefs" held. --Aboverepine 17:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThis is a great example of wikipedia tracking online phenomena - the article is not a continuation of the hoax but a documentation of it, and i believe it has a place here. Merging it with spirituality and religion seems to add an organizational bias to the content. I think it should stay where it is... - ze
  • Keep - This article describes a movement just like all the other movements of the world. Just because the author has chosen a particular way to display his ideas about the world does not merit imediate deletion - even if that method is satire.
  • Keep Wikipedia is not really the same as a printed encyclopedia. Extra articles (especially of this quality) don't cost anything (apart from size, which is negligible) and people can find articles here that they can't find in any other encyclopedia, or even in webpages. In fact, my opinion is that we keep any article (unless it is of low quality or inaccurate) so that people can find anything they are looking for, regardless if it is a phenomenon or an internet fad. Poromenos 17:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hey, its even been mentioned on slashdot!
  • Keep - Just as long as you all realize you're going to burn in hell for this.
  • Keep
  • Keep - if only to show the reaction to the boards decision.
  • Keep - This is a bona fide article of underground culture, much in the same way that "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" and the "Badgers, Badgers, Badgers" animations are. Whether or not some people might be offended by the heretical or blatant silliness of the FSM should not be a reasonable grounds for deletion from Wikipedia. Heavens know, I dislike Republicanism and Rap music, but I would never support information on them being deleted from Wikipedia. If nothing else, the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster stands as a modern, if sillier, version of Swift's "A Modest Proposal", highlighting an equally stupid idea currently afflicting the Kansas Boards of Education.
  • Keep - historical importance, cultural meme, and a fine read!
  • Keep - This is an important article documenting a cultural phenonomenon.
  • Keep - Nothing wrong with the article
  • Keep - I used this article while researching the FSM last week. It was very useful, as I expect Wikipedia to be. Keep.
  • Keep Cabalamat 21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia maintains pages on religions, cults, and movements - this would be no different. Sure, it's a parody, but I think the entry is valid, informative, and should stay.
  • Keep per 67.171.35.234. --Randy Johnston 22:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a joke religion like several others, and about notable enough. Rd232 22:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a previous user said, "It is an internet meme that requires explanation, and Wikipedia is exactly the kind of place to provide that explanation." I guess as support for that point, I submit the following. After hearing about the FSM, I went to the Wikipedia in order to find out more information. I suppose I'd like to know where I should be expected to learn about the FSM, its history, and the part it has played in the circus of pop-culture, if not from Wikipedia. I am certainly not a seasoned Wikipedia editor, but I feel very strongly that the topic of the FSM must be addressed here in some form. I guess it would help to know why there is consideration for the deletion of the article. On what grounds does the article fail the charter of the Wikipedia? yek401