Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Thursdayism


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Dihydrogen  Monoxide   ♫  07:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Following review request and admin consensus, reclosed as merge and redirect to omphalism. FT2 (Talk 08:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed by:


 * - A l is o n  ❤ 08:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that I would have closed this as merge and redirect as well (I came across this in the WP:AFDO log).  Daniel  09:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Last Thursdayism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. The only references are to a defunct homepage and a discussion on the talk.origins newsgroup. Last Thursdayism is a fine rhetorical argument, and perhaps deserves a passing mention in the five minute hypothesis or omphalism articles, but does not seem to be notable enough for its own article LeContexte 12:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Omphalos or Five minute hypothesis. Handschuh-talk to me 14:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Omphalos or Five minute hypothesis. -- Langelgjm (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Five minute hypothesis and keep content. Omphalos is a distinct concept and should not be merged.  Last Thursdayism and the Five minute hypothesis, however, are basically identicial, and information about one necessarily informs the other.  --M @ r ē ino 03:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mareino. In addition, apparently some explanation (in the text) as to the idea's status is in order. It might be viewed as a giddy joke best left to chatboxes and blogs, but at the same time it may function as a critique (or at least a satire) of omphalism and even creationism. Bessel Dekker (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep though merging to Omphalos (theology) or Five minute hypothesis (not just a non-merge redirect) would work too if that's the consensus. While it isn't a hugely popular "parody religion," having been overshadowed by Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, I've heard it mentioned a number of times in connection to FSM as Last Thursdayism makes a good point that isn't directly addressed by FSM "beliefs". I'm pretty sure it got a mention on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe at least once during a discussion about intelligent design and FSM. It's notable enough to be preserved in some way. --Icarus (Hi!) 07:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep content whatever else is done. If it is to be merged, I think Five minute hypothesis is the closest match. On the question of whether it deserves a separate article, I don't think the scales tip strongly in either direction. My inclination in such a case is to preserve status quo. --Randall Nortman (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Five minute hypothesis :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 21:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - definitely notable, could be better referenced. Possibly merge Five minute hypothesis (a much shorter article) into Last Thursdayism. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with merging five minute hypothesis into Last Thursdayism, despite the fact that it is the shorter one, because the five minute hypothesis is historically the much more noteworthy one. It would be nice if it were a bit longer, but then again, the concept is quite simple, and does not really need much exposition.  It is possible that the best thing is to merge all three articles together.  I think in that case that since both five minute hypothesis and Last Thursdayism are essentially responses to Omphalos (theology), that the latter should be the one that remains, including the content of the other two.  Or we could stick with the status quo, which really isn't hurting anybody. --Randall Nortman (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep/merge. Seems to contain original research. And is usenet a reliable source?-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 07:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * USENET is a reliable source of information about what has been said on USENET, which is essentially what this article is all about. I don't see any original research here.  On USENET, it was original "research".  Here, it is a summary of the results of that "research".  This is the modern version of a bunch of Greek guys sitting around chatting about philosophy while enjoying a Mediterranean vista, coming up with a few interesting ideas that get scrawled onto scolls, copied and stored in a library, and eventually end up in philosophy textbooks.  --Randall Nortman (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep content and merge - article is not referenced by reliable sources and the subject does not appear to be sufficiently different from teh five minute hypothesis. Skomorokh  incite 16:42, 22 November 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.