Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silly Revolution

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silly Revolution

• Delete. Non-notable nonsense. Appears to be related to deleted article Pharsh. android79 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Never before have I seen so much nonsense thrown up in just one article here. We should get rid of this idiocy as soon as possible --SoothingR 13:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but not speedy. This is a non-notable phenomenon probably dreamed up by some kid in junior high with way too much free time. But similarly "silly" memes _have_ achieved notable status. This one hasn't, but that's only made clear after a Google search. --Ashenai 13:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article itself calls this so-called "silly revolution" - and I quote - the most pointless example of social activism since the pro-Star Trek demonstrations. End of quote. Why even add an entry in an encyclopedia if it's entirely pointless? --SoothingR 13:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • AYBABTU is entirely pointless, and yet we have a sizeable article on it. We want to include stuff that's notable, not necesarily stuff that has a point. The subject of this article is neither, of course, but that's a different issue. :) --Ashenai 13:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Silly, but true: Article re Pharsh Militia and the "Silly Revolution" in The Jerusalem Post, Israel's largest English-language daily newspaper. --DardaDos 13:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A single mention in a human interest piece in a newspaper does not make something notable. Besides that, the Wikipedia article is still absolute nonsense. android79 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • comment: First of all, Nonsense it is not, beacause it states true facts (as silly as they may be), and secondly, while I agree that the article linked cannot be considered an epitome of journalistic endeavours, the many other, more in-depth articles (including Television, Radio, Printed and Electronnic Media) that could be presented are all in Hebrew, and as such will probably not be accorded the significance due to them.DardaDos 13:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting! This only highlights the shortcomings of the article, though; it says nothing at all about Jerusalem, Pharsh, and gives no names at all. If the article is cleaned up, actual encyclopedic facts are included, and notabilitiy is asserted, I could easily see changing my vote. Please note, though, that while Wikipedia articles can be about very silly topics, they should never themselves be silly. --Ashenai 13:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Noted. Will consider changes in style. DardaDos 13:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; regardless of merit/lack of merit of article itself, the underlying phenomenon is insufficiently notable. --MCB 17:42, 29 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.