Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Fingers theories

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 no consensus. Woohookitty 09:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salad Fingers theories

There was a page with the same premise of this one that was previously voted for deletion, yet another one was created. That page is archived here. Articles with personal essays and original thought have no place in Wikipedia. The decision should be respected, and this article should be deleted. Kaonashi 05:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

For rules on original thought/research, please see Wikipedia:No original research

• Keep. I think the parent article, Salad Fingers, has gained enough notoriety to warrant an interesting and well thought out article on the sense behind the nonsensical that is Salad Fingers. Wikipedia is not completely devoid of theories behind speculated symbolism, and on a related note, Harry Potter has a huge page devoted to the all the spells that appear in the books/movies and their possible incantations, causes, effects, and origins. -- MacAddct1984 06:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; this smacks of original research. --Alan Au 06:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dottore So 06:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think all those involved have done an excellent job in explaining the aspects of the Salad Finger universe and the article is both entertaining, enlightening and informing. I don't see how Salad Fingers Theories needs a deletion its presense only serves to be of help. And somehow I believe fans of the series would likely look on Wikipedia anyway for analysis rather then synopsis. I really don't mean to offend those who want to delete the article but i doubt their critical reasoning, those who aren't so keen on Salad Fingers shouldn't be voting as to them it may be seen as a mindless cartoon. This would prevent an argumentum ad numerum which is largely swindled by lack-of-knowledge decisions rather then of informed decisions.

rebuttal Original research applies largely to only academic articles, also I have reason to believe Rjonseric is a sock puppet as it seems to be within close time frame and point as Nandesukall. The article states that it is theory and primary and secondary research is clearly used noting a NPOV which is not minority --Raddicks 13:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Kaonashi, this new page was created beause it shares nothing at all with the last page besides the name. It wouldn't be fair to keep the same votes for a page that has been completely redesigned. You've all probably seen the episodes. From discussion I know that 90% blow off the series as non-sensical and weird, while the other 10% ask if there's moe to it than what they see on the surface. David Firth even admits that there is more to the series than most people think, and I believe it's a great idea to keep theories (that were actually the result of discussion on David's page and not the result of one person's effort) so interested people can have a resource to help them with their own analyzations. -- Kyle Michelson 24 August 2005
• Keep I believe this has proved some interesting ideas into this series, and could be a good solve to the true story. -- Legendarydairy11:25, 24 August 2005. - (user's 4th and 6th edits)
• Abstain I think it would be better as a section of Salad Fingers, but I'm prepared to give this page a chance to prove its worth. --Billpg 18:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Of interest only to those individuals or groups submitting this and related articles. not notable, original --Rjonesric 19:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC) - (user's 1st edit)
• Delete, the entire article from beginning to end is, and is intended to be, original research. Nandesuka 19:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like original research. Optichan 20:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect Trollderella 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be original research. --Carnildo 22:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Provides useful insight, and is therefore worthy. Objectional tv shows like Lost are exempt - why not this as well? --Corporal TE Gaydar 00:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (Corporal TE Gaydar's first edit!)
• Merge,The theories don't necesarrily warrant another article. But the main points from here should definetly be moved to the main salad fingers article.
• Delete, NOR. Radiant_>|< 13:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Salad Fingers Roodog2k 17:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This is really overanalysing the saladfingers series of flash movies. It smacks of original research and borders on patent nonsense. Something that I would expect to find on a salad fingers fan forum, bordering on fan fiction. - Hahnchen 23:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

All i would say to that is there are two points to one match stick, you either get the spark or you don't. --Raddicks 19:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. Into Salad Fingers; it seems like the best course of action. - Gavin 1:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this article should stay its very informative and accurate --80.2.181.145 14:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC) (80.2.181.145's first edit!)

I wonder what kind of accuracy speculation is supposed to have.--Kaonashi 02:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge --tranquileye 19:25:26, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
• Merge!! This is a great article. --realwingus 07:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article has no references, and is therefore probably original research. arj 08:58, 31 August 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.