Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaghetti & Pulsar Activating Meatballs

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to complete a merge. - Mgm|(talk) 08:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Spaghetti & Pulsar Activating Meatballs
Insufficiently notable &mdash; ciphergoth 20:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The first vote states content was merged. I have redirected the article to retain the edit history and attribution per GFDL requirements for a merge. You can't keep the content and delete the history- Mgm|(talk) 08:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - I merged the content of this article into Flying Spaghetti Monsterism because it wasn't really notable enough for an article of its own. That content was cut down to almost nothing in that article because it wasn't considered notable enough even for that.  To use that as justification to resurrect this article isn't an accurate view of what happened.  The only notable thing about it is a very brief mention as an aside in the New York Times; it therefore deserves mention as an aside in the FSM article, which it now has.  This isn't Uncyclopaedia.
 * Delete per nom. Sdedeo 20:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect bogdan | Talk 21:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Nandesuka 21:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even though I agree that the article is not all that "notable." But the Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge that should include what some may want to know even though most would find it "not notable."  Indeed, arguably, most information in an encyclopedia would be deemed not notable by most people.


 * I wouldn't have created this page if its "mention as an aside in the FSM article"---which I agree is all that is needed (or "justified")---hadn't disappeared. For this reason, merger with fsm doesn't work because of the volatility of the fsm page. E.g., if someone reading the NY Times article (or after hearing about it from some other newspaper or blog) went to Wikipedia to find out what SPAM is, they would be redirected to fsm where there was no mention of SPAM.  (This is also why a redirect won't work.)


 * I changed the fsm page to mention spam again, but that won't necessarily last. The solution is to have very brief articles such as this SPAM article that can stand alone and not be affected by changes on other pages. What's wrong with such a short article/note?  Wikipedia is not like a paper encyclopedia where space is limited.  While not an important article, it would never be seen by someone who is not specifically interested.  It would not fill some volume taking space on some bookshelf.  If someone wanted to learn about "spaghetti," for example, they wouldn't have to pick up an unwieldy volume weighed down with articles like spam, i.e., if not interested in this specific topic, users of the Wikipedia will never be aware of its existence.


 * While I don't think every word ever written should end up in the Wikipedia, this is information that people are actively seeking today. The NY Times article/column has been reprinted verbatim in newspapers all over the world, not to mention innumerable blogs.  To be able to find out more and at least be directed to external sources for further information, isn't that the function of an encyclopedia?


 * Delete. Goodness me. Wikipedia is not a junkyard for collecting every piece of information floating about the place. Given the reason for keeping FSM (it was used to bully an education board), I'm not even persuaded of the case for the merge, but there we are. Since it wasn't a merge in the GFDL-retaining-redirect sense, we should just remove this page. -Splash 23:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the principle is that you are espousing: "the reason for keeping FSM [is because] it was used to bully an education board."  Apparently, the fact that it was used to ridicule a school board makes it eligible for inclusion?  The VAST majority of people who show interest in FSM---especially those who edit it and develop other parodies and have developed the uncyclopedia article---are in it for the humor/entertainment.  Is that legitimate enough to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia?  If not, why not?  Comic cultural elements are surely of legitimate interest to many.  The issue for an encyclopedia surely is "what information may people be interested in seeking?"  Not "what do you or I find to be junk or worthy."  Indeed, short articles like this would help to prevent what your user page indicates that you are concerned about, i.e., people putting stuff in articles that doesn't really belong there and weakening the credibility of wikipedia. Short pieces like this one will not be seen by someone stopping in a "wikishop" looking for something else and will thus cut down on the feeling that extraneous information has been shoved into an article.  Again, why shouldn't people be able to find out about something they are interested in, especially if making the info available does NOT clutter up other articles?  -Kriegman


 * Delete, we must keep some information out of Wikipedia, lest some of us decide to destroy the universe to prevent new information from forming. -- Kjkolb 06:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - If Wikipedia has room from FSM-ism it has room for SPAM. I also agree with the argument that relying on a reference to SPAM in the FSM artcile is likely to be transient. Moschops 06:35, 6 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.