Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Fingers theories (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 10:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Salad Fingers theories
Original research. Survived VFD as no-consensus. Delete. NSLE ( 讨论 + extra  CVU ) 05:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research. ERcheck 06:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is way, way, way too much thought put into those arguably interesting cartoons; and it's original research anyway. If this is kept however, maybe I'll finally write my original research on Nietzschean Themes in Barney and Friends. Flyboy Will 08:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not a big fan of renominating articles that survived previous votes. This one has a lot of different contributors  and it is based on the real Salad Fingers and hence it can be presumed that the theories are based on that, and hence are not original research.  I couldn't care less about Salad Fingers, but this has its merits. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a hard call, but I have to say Delete as original research. There has been a lot of work done on and thought put into this article, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Unless the editors can cite sources other than their personal interpretations of the work, I think this really needs to go onto a web site (not here) that's linked from the main Salad Fingers page. Perhaps a short summary could be merged back to that page from this one. --FreelanceWizard 10:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, reluctantly as I enjoyed reading it (and discussing it on the talk page) and would love to see this elsewhere, but that doesn't change the fact that it's OR, even if it's collaborative OR. As for it being a renomination, I think the chance to renominate dubious articles like these are part of the reason why closing admins differentiate between 'keep' and 'no consensus'. --Last Malthusian 11:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, on the basis of being indecipherable to the casual viewer. --Agamemnon2 14:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Majorly condense and then merge into the main article. The whole thing could be condensed into a paragraph or two by taking out some of the more speculative parts, many of which are quite a stretch indeed. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 22:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Jonnyboy8807 (Anon vote - NSLE  ( 讨论 + extra  CVU ) 01:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete. Patently original research. There's not a single source cited in the entire article. &mdash;preceding unsigned comment by Dpbsmith (talk &bull; contribs) 20:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zordrac. --Billpg 15:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Martg76 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep < The article isn't original research, you will find most if not all the theories in this article in that link. The article's contents are collected and widely accepted views on the Salad Fingers universe. It holds some merit of acknowledgement in the flash community, various theories have been suggested, many debated and the most notable ones featured have featured in this article(with widest support). Remember - the theories have been subjected in a peer reviewed environment, if im not mistaken. If it is credible for Everything2 and Urbandictionary to be a citiful source i see no reason why an official forum of the creator isn't a credible place. Over the last months i have been trying to remove original research whilst maintaining this page, i will assume wikipedian faith and obviously i am biased but i know for certain it doesn't qualify as original research (but the sources should of been cited i accept that)
 * For theories:

state the key concepts; state the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and bearing in mind that extreme-minority theories or views need not be included. Requirements have been met --Raddicks 21:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything2 and Urban Dictionary are not credible sources for any subject other than themselves. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Damik 00:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) (Damik's second edit)
 * Keep Why is this being brought up again when it was ok'ed the first time? The 'casual viewer' won't be on this page. Only those who have seen the cartoon and want to know more about it. Kyle Michelson 3:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)  &mdash;preceding unsigned comment by 128.175.153.59 (talk &bull; contribs) 08:46, 11 December 2005  (UTC)
 * 1) Because no consensus was reached. 2) True, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If someone hosts this somewhere else, we can always put it in as an external link in the main article. --Last Malthusian 10:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Patent original research.  Article cites zero sources.  Forum posts and Urban Dictionary are not sources. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete why the hell one would vote to keep this? It's OR, even the title admits that.  Grue   15:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete silly --Jaranda wat's sup 01:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zordrac. -- JJay 18:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete OR.Gateman1997 00:00, 14 December 2005 (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.