Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Spaghetti Monster

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.54.247.140 (talk) at 13:51, 23 August 2005 (→[[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Note to admins: This nomination was made on 06:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC).[1]

Do not reformat vote pages!
Please do not try to reformat this page into supposed valid or invalid votes; see the Talk Page for more details.
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because this LiveJournal post told you to come and "Do your part", please don't. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a VfD discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The VfD process is designed to draw on the judgement of experienced Wikipedians who understand what they are voting on and how it fits in with Wikipedia's overall policies; for this reason votes from users whose histories do not show that experience, including those who sign up for accounts after the vote started, are traditionally discounted. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be. However, unless you have a point to make in the discussion that no one before you touched upon, it may not be worth it; merely saying "me too" or reiterating an already-raised point is unlikely to sway anyone. Please remember, if you comment, that the discussion is not about the merits of "Flying Spaghetti Monster" as a concept, but Flying Spaghetti Monster as an article. If the distinction seems at all unclear, this is a good sign that maybe you would not be helping matters to chip in.
  • KEEP Whether FSM is a minor blip on the culture screen or becomes a larger touchstone of the ID debate, it IS a legitimate phenomenom whose record should be preserved. This sort of historial incident is gold for researchers; if I were to study 14th-century Venice, I'd have to spend many years combing through mouldering papers in state archives. If I wanted to study the rhetorical tactics of anti-creationists, I'm going to have a much easier job thanks to Wikipedia. The arguments that FSM is mocking religion are misplaced; Wikipedia should certainly work to ensure objectivity, but when that call goes so far as to demand that topics of offense not be included, it has gone far beyond that standard.--
  • KEEP Should be treated as all other religious pieces --
  • KEEP Thats an important and famous piece in an ongoing discussion abou relgion and freedom of speech --213.144.15.2 13:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP What about the freedom of speech?! This is not about mocking the religious beliefs of people, but about the fact that science and religion doesn't go that good together and should be seperated in school. And that the people who take everything in religious books as facts, are sometimes the same ones that crash planes into buildings, because they don't try to question the things they hear.

That said, it is part of the intrnet history now, and as that it deserves a place in the wikipedia, it is something people want to know about (just look it up in your favourite search machine)

  • KEEP Theres nothing wrong with it.
  • DELETE This whole 'phenomenon' started at as a typical atheist jab at religion, and while I am not religious myself, I find it insulting that this sort of behavior is acceptable. Seeing as no-one can prove 100% where we come from (or how), creation and evolution theories are both worth learning about. If this topic is worth keeping, I'm sure some wiki's based on the evolution of dinosaurs to humans can be added.. it worked for Mario Brothers the Movie.
  • KEEP Because its a matter of keeping scientific standads in schools as well as a appreciating an coutermovement to the nonsense of the Kansas school board.

KEEP

  • KEEP If I remember right, there was a concept called "freedom of speech" ?!?.
  • KEEP its informative and helpfull and its a matter people are interested in.
  • KEEP until you can proof anything it claims is wrong (from Sebastian Zieglmeier)
  • KEEP Better intelligent nonsense than ultraordox nonsense!
  • KEEP Please keep the article and simply add, who was the first to scribe about it, so that an educated reader can classify the information for himself correctly
  • KEEP Many many many guys are seriously interested (including me)
  • Keep Every opinion on how this world came about is an advantage for humanity
  • Keep This is political (and religious) satire at its very best! 80.142.97.152 10:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as you can see by the german news coverage people are obviously interested. if there's interest, than have it in wikipedia
  • Keep - This article is informative and concerns censorship and free speech. It is in no way offending, misinforming or wrong.
  • Keep - It is a kind of political protest, which just made it's way to Germany (www.spiegel.de)
  • "Keep" - Huge step for mankind.
  • "Keep" _ this is a very good artikle
  • Keep - Maybe it needs some minor cleanup, but it documents an important viewpoint in this debate. Regardless of how "silly" it is perceived as wrt being a religion, it is still equally valid. This article documents an important and popular topic that has sufficiently broad scope.
  • Keep - Deleting that would be a gross act of censorship. People must be smart enough to separate the obviously wrong from the right.
  • Delete* As an article it's terrible.
  • Keep - This page explains what the phrase "Flying Spaghetti Monster" refers to. Deleting would be similar to censorship. 20:30, 22 August 2005 (CST)ellimist
  • Keep - The FSM raises an important point against Creationism, as it shows those who do subscribe to the "theory" of Creationism the same view that rational individuals have been hearing from Creationist "theory" for years. 00:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)ndsutter
  • KEEEEEEP - This is notable as an important cultural backlash against Creationism. More notable is the internet origins of this concept and its rapid ascent to the forefront of the internet debate on Creationism. SPOILER WARNING: We evolved from lower primates. 23:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Alan J. Romero
  • Keep FSM is an important internet meme, but unlike many of the others cited, it's not just a joke. FSM is a direct response to the movement to teach Intelligent Design in schools. As noted in the article, "U.S. President George W. Bush and U.S. Senator Bill Frist have publicly supported the teaching of non-evolutionary theories". The ID debate is a serious issue in America today, and the FSM is a humorous but sincere response to that debate. This article clearly explains the issue & deserves a place in the Wikipedia. 67.171.35.234 22:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -It is an internet meme that requires explanation, and Wikipedia is exactly the kind of place to provide that explanation--my submission to World Book Encyclopedia was rejected. While it may be offensive to some, its parody of religious faith is impossible to argue against--just like religious faith! Fancy that. And it is timely; a deft, modern arguement in a debate which, for some reason, didn't end at the Scopes Monkey Trial. You want to delete it? Well, my Jesus bobble head just told me that you shouldn't. –Gelatinous.Cube (talk · contribs)'s only edit 16:58:46, 2005-08-22
  • Keep--128.218.15.83 17:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FSM may be junk to some people but IMHO it is something that will be around for quite a while and needs a "no rubbish definition". The article is well written, explains the subject matter and thus should be kept. If it is to be removed then there should be an article which covers this subject in a broader context. –Astrolox. 14:10:46, 2005-08-22 (UTC) Astrolox (talk · contribs)'s only edit
  • Keep The great thing about the Wikipedia is that you can find quality information about topics that might not be otherwise found in a regular Encyclopedia. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is now its own entity that will have a life on the internet, just like I_kiss_you. It is important that this piece of history be recorded, and the Wikipedia is the best place to do it. -- unsigned vote by 24.84.192.212 (talk · contribs); user's first and second edits
  • Keep To remove this yet keep other similar nonsense by "organized" religions would be hypocritical. 67.10.88.183 (talk · contribs)'s only edit
  • Keep At one point, this would have been just a joke; now, it is a joke with a rebellious undertone. I believe it is worth keeping. –Cory M. 11:54:34, 2005-08-21 (UTC) CoryM (talk · contribs)'s fifth edit
  • Keep It is important, funny and great. --64.54.250.128 05:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC) 64.54.250.128 (talk · contribs)'s only edit[reply]
  • Keep Comes under freedom of speech and opinion. Edward301 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Edward301 (talk · contribs)'s eighth edit[reply]
Ummm, while I'm in agreement with the keep vote, Edward, you're aware that neither freedom of speech nor opinion are criteria for keeping an article on Wikipedia, right? Jason 03:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: If not for this article I would not have had the pleasure of knowing the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- unsigned vote by 71.116.187.184 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • KEEP: The flying spaghetti monster is real. What's all the fuss about? I vote to keep him -- unsigned vote by 66.158.195.32 (talk · contribs); user's only edit

--64.54.250.128 05:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Part of internet culture, mainstream-ish media and a valid piece in the creationsism versus evolution debate. Especially the million dollars on offer for proof that this is not the godshead, as a counter to the $2500000 on offer for proof of evolution. -- unsigned vote by 80.213.187.73 (talk · contribs); user's fourth edit


  • Keep - important not only for comedy but for a viable argument about religion as a whole. Encyclopedic and verifiable. Just make sure it stays encyclopedic and doesn't go making silly statements as we've seen in some of the recent vandalism. -- unsigned vote by EatMyShortz (talk · contribs)
  • Keep : deletion kind of makes the original author's point. This page is just as viable and worthy as any other page on religion. -- unsigned vote by 81.86.124.195 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep And bring back clock spider. -- unsigned vote by 81.86.124.195 (talk · contribs); user's third edit
  • Keep This is an informative article about an actual phenomenon that is clearly under attack by religious idealogues, who keep trying to delete it. Should be locked for a period until these vandalism attacks cease. -- unsigned vote by 66.108.220.146 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep. Is a legitimate political satire movement. - grubber 19:08, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Keep or, failing that, merge with intelligent design. This seems to have attracted some mainstream attention and therefore is probably notable. If it's forgotten in six-months then we can simply have this discussion again and merge it with something or delete it as appropriate. That said, I'm far from sure the current edit conforms with POV guidelines. That's easy enough to change, though. Disillusioned kid 21:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kansas and the nation are at risk of brain death if we don't encourage skeptical thinking. Wikipedia plays a great role in this endeavor.
  • Keep This article documents the creation of an "illegitimate" religion. The subject may be satirical (which I don't believe is grounds for deletion to begin with), however the events surrounding and leading to its inception are actual. One researching this period of time who manages to stumble upon this page (or any given article in tangeable press) will discover the circumstances that brought this joke to life and furthermore won't be mislead into thinking FSM is an actual deity. The article is clearly prefaced in this way. The FSM phenomenon actually took place and it deserves a home in Wikipedia. Jack Driscoll 21 August 2005

Removing this article would be blasphemy. --69.19.14.17 22:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC) DoomPenguin 21 August 2005[reply]

  • Keep: You can't hide the truth forever! (18:35 pacific, 21-08-05)
  • Keep The FSM has been mentioned a lot on the internet lately, and Wikipedi is (and IMO 'should' be) an obvious place to come for more information. This kind of cultural information is one of the main strengths of Wikipedia. — B.Bryant 01:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason for this to be deleted. --fiberglassdolphin 22:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Fiberglassdolphin (talk · contribs) has exactly one edit. This is it.
  • Keep: Without a doubt! Definitely notable. Meets all criteria for a Wikipedia article. Funny too. Sunray 01:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The "Flying Spagheti Monster" by itself is pointless. The fact that it is significant in that it is a part of the debate between religion and evolution being taught in schools. The religion is a persuasive arguement, but notable. Because of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we will probably see the monster appear again in later debates. --Zoop 01:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The FSM article should be kept, but in a manner that is encyclopedic. Wikipedia has various articles on other Internet meme's, why should this be treated any differently. Let the external links point to the sites that have more humor, let the wiki article reflect it's history and coverage as an internet meme.Cfpresley 02:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article makes clear that it's satirical. Keep for the same reason that the Invisible Pink Unicorn has an entry. Both satirical religions deserve to be noted. --taliswolf 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article looks good, and has become a pretty popular meme. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 04:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep StrongUser:Indolering
  • Strong Keep. Wikipedia has become an astonishingly entensive and accurate reference to internet culture, as the articles for Invisible Pink Unicorn, Gay Nigger Association of America, and Animutation articles can testify sstrongly to. I've seen things that have gotten less media attention and more controversy kept, so why delete this? --TexasDex 05:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article is of good quality and is noted appropriately as an internet phenomenon of fictional nature.
  • Keep. Notable, sources available. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • At the moment, even with a lot of discounted votes, it looks like this is going to be kept. Might I suggest it to be listed in Wikipedia:Unusual articles alongside Invisible pink unicorn? - Mgm|(talk) 07:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has become an important figure in the ID debate. As such, it is useful to have an article which describes Him. August 22, 2005 Ortcutt (talk · contribs)
  • Keep It's a popular meme (As of this writing "flying spaghetti monster" yields 56,900 hits in Google) and it's certainly less silly than List of songs about body parts. -Hessef 08:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many articles on Wikipedia about seemingly trivial things, like All Your Base or many video game related articles. If we keep those then we should keep this. ____Ebelular 09:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now For the time being, the Flying Spaghetti Monster seems pretty notable as a parody of Intelligent Design, and has notable similarities with Invisible pink unicorn. Perhaps we should return to this issue in a year's time, and ensure that it is still notable. I should stress that the wikipedia article should be an 'encyclopedic' articles about the concept, and not a piece of fictioncruft Bluap 10:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - itz a matter of fredum ov speech! (sorry, just wanted to say that once...). Uh, seems notable enough by the previously accepted standards of "weird but widespread Internet phenomenon", though I guess it is rather quick. Shimgray 10:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FSM is a net phenomenon and part of ID history. CatMoran 11:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Basically, ditto for the above. Like the (shudder) dancing baby, it is a legitimate 'Net phenom. Just make sure that it is accurate.
  • Keep The article seems well written, especially after the rewrites, and I feel it is encyclopedic. ++Lar 14:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Removal of information decreases the relevancy and therefore the value, of Wikipedia. One of the promises of an open source archival system is its ability to encompass information not traditionally found in an encyclopedia, to be a knowledge repository, and by doing so becoming more useful and relevant than the limited scope of a traditional encyclopedia. The function of the moderators should simply be to ensure that such information is described and categorized properly, as is done here, with the description of the FSM as a parody religion. As such it can only serve to increase knowledge, not obfuscate or confuse. This entry, as current August 22, 2005, should be retained. JLF, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Google gets 124,000 hits for Flying Spaghetti Monster. Invisible Pink Unicorn gets 65,100. Both are relevant, and for the same reason. The article qualifies on "noteworthy" --KillerChihuahua 14:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because notable, as voiced in other votes. Sietse 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable parody, especially in regards to ID debate. Eclipsed 15:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because otherwise I'll declare a jihad on the unbelievers who delete the FSM. :: DarkLordSeth 15:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unconvinced of the FSM's encyclopedic nature. The 59K google hits seem to be from blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. (Obviously I was skimming, not checking on all of them. Change my vote to Keep in the event a newspaper article or significant web magazine pickts it up and runs with it.--Tznkai 16:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep: [3] Looks like FSM has attracted the attention of some journalist in a notable paper or two.--Tznkai 18:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need this and other similar satires documented so that others can read about them in years to come. This article is a part of history. Just today I saw a bit on the news about the evolution vs. creationism debate and thought "I should email them and tell them about FSM." Someone needs to archive this. Wikipedia is a perfect place to do this!
  • Keep Wikipedia is far more than a standard book encyclopedia, and articles such as this are uniquely found here. Besides, if we're going to include Densa, FSM is of the same nature. I've recommended this article to my Mensa friends. Simesa 17:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Stbalbach 17:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful page written with no POV. It was useful to me after reading about the FSM phenomenon in the UK's Guardian newspaper. Equant
  • KeepThis is a popular net parody and should be documented. However, I think the article should focus more on the rationale behind the phenomenon, the concept, and cultural impact vs just the "tenets" and "beliefs" held. --Aboverepine 17:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThis is a great example of wikipedia tracking online phenomena - the article is not a continuation of the hoax but a documentation of it, and i believe it has a place here. Merging it with spirituality and religion seems to add an organizational bias to the content. I think it should stay where it is... - ze
  • Keep - This article describes a movement just like all the other movements of the world. Just because the author has chosen a particular way to display his ideas about the world does not merit imediate deletion - even if that method is satire.
  • Keep Wikipedia is not really the same as a printed encyclopedia. Extra articles (especially of this quality) don't cost anything (apart from size, which is negligible) and people can find articles here that they can't find in any other encyclopedia, or even in webpages. In fact, my opinion is that we keep any article (unless it is of low quality or inaccurate) so that people can find anything they are looking for, regardless if it is a phenomenon or an internet fad. Poromenos 17:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hey, its even been mentioned on slashdot!
  • Keep - Just as long as you all realize you're going to burn in hell for this.
  • Keep
  • Keep - if only to show the reaction to the boards decision.
  • Keep - This is a bona fide article of underground culture, much in the same way that "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" and the "Badgers, Badgers, Badgers" animations are. Whether or not some people might be offended by the heretical or blatant silliness of the FSM should not be a reasonable grounds for deletion from Wikipedia. Heavens know, I dislike Republicanism and Rap music, but I would never support information on them being deleted from Wikipedia. If nothing else, the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster stands as a modern, if sillier, version of Swift's "A Modest Proposal", highlighting an equally stupid idea currently afflicting the Kansas Boards of Education.
  • Keep - historical importance, cultural meme, and a fine read!
  • Keep - This is an important article documenting a cultural phenonomenon.
  • Keep - Nothing wrong with the article
  • Keep - I used this article while researching the FSM last week. It was very useful, as I expect Wikipedia to be. Keep.
  • Keep Cabalamat 21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia maintains pages on religions, cults, and movements - this would be no different. Sure, it's a parody, but I think the entry is valid, informative, and should stay.
  • Keep per 67.171.35.234. --Randy Johnston 22:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a joke religion like several others, and about notable enough. Rd232 22:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a previous user said, "It is an internet meme that requires explanation, and Wikipedia is exactly the kind of place to provide that explanation." I guess as support for that point, I submit the following. After hearing about the FSM, I went to the Wikipedia in order to find out more information. I suppose I'd like to know where I should be expected to learn about the FSM, its history, and the part it has played in the circus of pop-culture, if not from Wikipedia. I am certainly not a seasoned Wikipedia editor, but I feel very strongly that the topic of the FSM must be addressed here in some form. I guess it would help to know why there is consideration for the deletion of the article. On what grounds does the article fail the charter of the Wikipedia? Yek401 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FUCKING DELETE. Just for having caused all this stupid crap. -HX
  • KEEP. Absolutely, just so there will be an ongoing record of the stupidity going on in the Kansas BOE. From a former Kansan, educated there when it was actually OK to teach Evolution.
  • KEEP.It may not be a serious religion, it is a part of internet culture so i say keep it.
  • KEEP Samrolken 01:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Only the religious who are offended want to delete the factual information about this fake religion.
  • ""KEEP"". It's a part of the internet culture now. It's not just any old flyaway meme.
  • ""KEEP"". There is nothing wrong with this article. FSM was created to ridicule Intelligent Design which is a hot current event that is not going to go away.

KEEP. It is worth reading, so for heavens sake, please keep it.

  • ""KEEP"" The subject of the article is satire and a point of interest for the internet community and is exactly the information Wikipedia should cover. The article itself is adequately written and organized; much moreso than many other articles. It is definately worth keeping. Brlancer 02:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Anything that fights against moronism is worth spreading... Oops. I mean creationism.
  • KEEP: It is an excellent piece of satire on the state of affairs in American Lysenkoism. It is artistically done (the original concept) and the article is well written. This is a significant (sub-sub-)subcultural deconstruction of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical/Politically-active Christian subculture. To remove it from Wikipedia at this time would do a disservice to all:
    1. It would damage the pastafarians by keeping their beliefs out of public discourse.
    2. It would damage the Intelligent Design movement by eliminating a critical venue for discourse, thus harming both the consumers of Intelligent Design and those who would like to examine all the issues.
    3. It would damage American internetting society by depriving the members of the opportunity to reach an understanding of the religion/science/farce of Pastafarianism and through it, Intelligent Design, through an authoritative venue such as WP.
    4. It's censorship - or deletionism at best - but aren't there enough other things to fix in the WP than this? Gawd!!! I can't believe how much time I've spent typing this in.
John Elder 02:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - This shouldn't even be in question at this point. It's become its own phenomenon both on Wikipedia and on the internet. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has earned the right to have a page. Arielle Rose

Delete How can anyone say to keep this? It started in June of this year. It has no real significance. It may be cute as a little joke, but to give it a defining page? Perhaps if it had been around longer than a couple of months, but right now it's just some fad.

  • Keep - a) It's been around for some months now, thereby unvalidating the above anonymous post. b) The article says it's not a "real" religion but rather a parody, and it really seems to have encyclopaedic value, considering its recognition in the media and possible (yet to be shown) role in the discussion about "intelligent design", which future generations will look back with a crying and a laughing eye. --Rubik's Cube 10:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article gives an informative description of a parody,,,dave souza 05:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - this article is informative, and as valid as listing Christianity or any other religion.

Delete By all means, please delete this nonsense.

  • KEEP - It is notable as a humorous response to attacks on science.
  • Keep - Do not delete reference to a religion that I believe strongly in. RAmen. --Readme 06:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Do not delete this because I think that Wikipedia has done well at indexing and providing information about other internet memes, why is this one any different?
  • KEEP - It is a phenomenon which as discussion and on many other fora has shown has proven to be interesting enoughRomanista
  • Keep. Zeitgeist, google hits, notable for the discussion of intelligent design etc. And BTW, it's a very enjoyable article. If the article is informative and NPOV then it is in any case not uncyclopedic Ben T/C 09:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - It is without doubt a issue in current newspapers. We need to know this in years.
  • KEEP - A very good article.
  • KEEP. - First Amendment rights, and it also explains just what the fuck the goddamn thing is. yadadydyadyadyadydayada. Delete it and the Catholicism jargon can go as well. --<:3   )~ 12:00 (blinking), some time ago (UTC)
  • KEEP, of course - this is neither a joke (but rather satire), nor an internet phenomenon (too many manifestations outside); it's even an international issue - see [4] -, and the wikipedia is the logical place to look it up. Clossius 09:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - please keep. The times of witch hunts and censorship is over. Long live Immanuel Kant!
  • KEEP - This article documents today's developments, just like AYB, for example. This knowledge, however insignificant it may seem compared to today's big problems, must be conserved.
  • KEEP [no more to say]
  • Keep. I am not surprised that there is a LiveJournal or other blog entry drawing people to here to vote "keep", but I am not one of them. I believe that this article is legitimate. What started off as a humorous open letter became a notable Internet phenomenon and was mentioned on various high-traffic websites; the vast numbers of e-mails and comments on its own site, as well as references to it all over the Internet, show this clearly. This article is as legitimate as, say, Badger Badger Badger or All Your Base Are Belong To Us, which are wholly unnotable things in themselves, but become notable due to the attention they receive on the Internet and the impact they have on Internet culture. – FSM is even more than this because it forms part of a huge controversy in contemporary American society: the Creationism debate. It is a beautiful illustration of how the controversy is seen by one of the two camps. If this article isn't notable, I don't know what else. – Timwi 11:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Verifiable pseudo-religion. It's good to know not everyone in the USA is stuck in the 14th century like President Bush or that Frist(sp?) guy. — JIP | Talk¨
  • KEEP - As important as creationism
  • KEEP - This article was the only place I could find a definition of "Pastafarianism." --AStanhope 11:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP** Pleeeeeease!
  • Keep - even made it to Der Spiegel [5], so certainly noteworthy enough. And a note to all those who dropped by: You can't really expect your vote to count now, but if you sign up and do some work here, the next time, it will count. -- AlexR 11:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moo. Someone should just delete this trainwreck of a VfD right now, as there's no way that it's going to end up with a consensus to delete with all the crap above. Kelly Martin 11:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a record of our times. A diary of the world. Will be useful a few years for somebody researching it.--Jetru 11:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP The article is fact-based, well-written and -structured and its topic has received fairly widespread attention, even in the traditional media. --y!qtr9f
  • Keep. a) as pointed out before, it's fact-based, well-written, and addresses the satirical origins, b) "flying spaghetti monster" does get something like 70,000 hits on google by now, and has been picked up by numerous media around the world, so it's definitely relevant enough afromme 13:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since this could become interesting and, if it succeeds, could change the way fundamentalism is treated ;) --Viciarg 12:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ligitimate topic andy 12:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we ARE living in a free world, then Spaghetti should be included on the intellectual (spiritual) menu too! Ideally with a bit of Parmesan... net_efekt
  • Keep. Fact-based dogma description. Would fit in a similar way to Christian fundamentalism. Uh, oh, so THIS is it about...stupid me. --El Suizo 12:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP It's as good as any Religion and as one of the more fact based ones sure worth being mentioned here! Prasie the FSM!
  • Keep. I for one welcome our new spaghetti overlords.
  • Keep. cited in most important German weekly newspaper "DER SPIEGEL" http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,370849,00.html . --Chim 12:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you delete this, you are religiously discriminating all FSMists. So if this goes down, then we all must vote to delete anything on christianity, judism, etc..
  • KEEP! Freedom of religion must be respected!
  • KEEP! This is not reported to be a "real" religion, but is reported as it actually is: A spoof religion designed to show the logical inconsistencies that arise when you try to teach religious tenets as scientific theories.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster&oldid=21647260"