Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Number Shitting Bear (0th nomination)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 09:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prime Number Shitting Bear
Is this web animation about a defecating bear somehow encyclopedically relevant? If the answer to this question is "yes", please cite at least one example of an encyclopaedia which does include this (or similar) information. 422 google hits. --GRider\talk 18:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable website. -- John Fader (talk &bull; contribs) 18:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. You're comparing wikipedia to other encyclopedias? Xezbeth  19:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. In answer to your question: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which includes this and similar information. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 19:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you sjorford for your comments. Is it then fair to construe that Wikipedia is systematically biased towards internet memes?  Could it be considered circular reasoning to refer back to Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia which includes content such as this?  In what way, for example, is this subject more notable than a local politician, educational institution, or adult film star?  --GRider\talk 19:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm on the fence on this one. I don't want to use the 'I've seen it before, so keep it' argument, but this might be a notable-enough Internet meme for inclusion. On the other hand, it's only 8% as notable as the I KISS YOU!!! guy, using the Google test. Looks like we're going to need a policy talk page for this, no? Android79 19:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm... for a web phenomenon, it doesn't really score a lot of googles. There are tons 'n tons of web animations, and for comparison, 'badger badger badger' scores 30000 googles. As such, delete as non-notable. Btw I'm all in favor of comparing WP to other encyclopedias, as long as the comparison makes clear that WP is the bestclopedia. Radiant! 19:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete mildly amusing, but nothing that needs an encyclopedia article. Not even a widespread or famous meme. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  19:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it appears to be not sufficiently noteable. Martg76 21:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough. kaal 21:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * With most google searches, the hits are a small reflection of the total scope of any subject, but with an internet phenomenon the results reflect the subject in its entirety. That said, 2,650 hits (the number "prime number shitting bear" got me) is quite small for an intenet phenomenon. Unless this critter goes by other names, I'm calling this not notable enough, and voting to delete. I admit I'm not a good judge of these things (Wikipedia is the closest I ever come to a chat room or anything), and the fact I have never heard of this is insignificant, so I wouldn't oppose a merge and redirect to internet phenomenon either, if the voting is close. -R. fiend 21:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. 2,650 hits indicate that plenty of people would be interested in reading about it or looking it up in an encyclopedia. Kappa 00:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's rather past its, uh, prime, but I remember it being a big deal when it made the rounds.Badlydrawnjeff 01:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, one of those way rare examples of scat humour that I actually think is cute, but hardly encyclopedic. The web is awash with prime calculators/spewers. Wyss 01:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, nn memecruft. ComCat 02:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as a comment, I think I requested this article somewhere long ago, and then Oliver Pereira created it, kind of as a joke. So take that as you will. Adam Bishop 06:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Grider should be glad there's no article about the Prime Number Shitting Goatse man. Yet... Rhobite 06:37, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Slightly amusing, but the subject is rather vapid. There really isn't much that can be written about it. Delete. --Slowking Man 06:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, the Prime Number Shitting Bear is a famous Flash animation, but that doesn't make it notable or encyclopedic.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 08:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's in JavaScript, not flash. &#8212;Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:42, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * And that somehow makes it more notable?   &mdash; J I P | Talk 05:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but I thought I'd correct that misunderstanding since I was writing something here anyway. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:58, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's just a web animation, people.  -Sean Curtin 03:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No one would consult an encyclopedia about this topic. There's really no story or facts here, unlike other internet fads, such as Star Wars Kid or Numa numa, that have actually garnered media attention. - NormanEinstein 16:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable web-animation. -- The Anome 16:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is nowhere near being an "Internet phenomenon".  Rossami (talk) 16:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. It's not that big an Internet sensation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - I agree with NormanEinstein and Sean Curtin on this one. It's just a web animation and has nowhere near enough notoriety to be in an encyclopedia. Treborbassett 15:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Google test is strongly biased in favour of ephemeral internet memes that have little real notability, and Prime Number Shitting Bear doesn't even score particularly well on that. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 20:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable, factual, popular. No sensible reason to delete - David Gerard 00:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * How silly! Merge somewhere, though probably not at prime number. BTW, this is on Unusual articles. --FOo 23:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:21 Z
 * Keep decent article. Grue 20:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this important meme! KingTT 06:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Internet phenomenon. Neutralitytalk 06:38, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic. Gmaxwell 06:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.