Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meatetarianism


 * 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Meatetarianism
Previously speedied as nonsense; author recreated page and argues on the talk page that this practice is notable. I don't see it in the article, which has no verifiable sources except for one reference to the Bible. NawlinWiki 00:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Google only knows about it via LiveJournal profiles and a MySpace. Even the Biblical link is nonsense, since it's just a link to the entire Bible. BigHaz 01:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that those Google results are for "meatetarianism" without Wikipedia being included. A google for "meatetarian -wikipedia" throws up more results, but these tend to be individuals calling themselves meatetarians presumably for a bit of fun, rather than any coherent ideology along the lines of vegetarianism. BigHaz 01:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That would imply that it is a joke ideology, like FSM, which could technically be notable. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  01:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but my experience with FSM and other notable joke ideologies is that there's some amount of "official" standard to parts of them. Most of what Google throws up seems to be people saying things like "I need a name for what I am...how about meatetarian". BigHaz 01:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If they had looked in the encyclopaedia, they would have found that carnivores and omnivores already have names. Uncle G 14:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The operative phrase is "could be". To make it over the bar for inclusion, a joke belief has to be properly documented in detail by other people who are independent of its founders/creators.  See Flying Spaghetti Monster. To determine that requires research.  Counting Google hits is not research.  Looking for sources is.  BigHaz is saying that no such sources exist. Uncle G 11:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, non-notable neologism, nonsensical. Rohirok 01:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rohirok. Thanks/wangi 01:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. wikipediatrix 03:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nyuk nyuk. Danny Lilithborne 03:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Danny. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Bradcis 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NEO, nonesnese. --Ter e nce Ong (T 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism.--Jersey Devil 08:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 11:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;Creative, but even those of us with rather seriously inclusionist views have a hard time arguing this has merit. Williamborg (Bill) 13:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonsense. J I P  | Talk 14:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete Not to mention the nonsense, should be speedied as a recreated article after a pervious deletion . Th ε Halo Θ 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No speedy deletion criteria apply. This article is not patent nonsense. Uncle G 15:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, seeing as NawlinWiki stated: "...Previously speedied as nonsense; author recreated page..." this meets the gerneral CSD criteria under General Criteria #4 Recreation of deleted material applies. Hope this helps :) Th ε Halo Θ 16:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong, it does not meet the criteria. G4 is quite explicit about it not applying to speedy deletions.  Please read and familiarize yourself with the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 16:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought that meant that if all the votes in the pervious AfD were 'Speedy Delete', it could not be re-speedied. I now understand what that sentance means. Sorry for the mix up, and thanks for helping to clear that up in my head ;). Th ε Halo Θ 16:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. Uncle G 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pathlessdesert 16:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete again as a nonsensical neologism. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism (WP:NEO) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:54, 29 August 2006 (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.