Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaddapology

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 Delete. Ral315 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Shaddapology

Unable to verify, Google returns zero hits [1]. Given page author's name, likely vanity. --Alan Au 06:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a serious parody of Scientology from Melbourne Australia.. Registration as a religion is currently pending. For Reference, See Church of Shaddapology Newsletter Website: http://members.iinet.net.au/~dwomen/files/nlNov405.html

Google will begin to register this up in a few weeks. JD Nov 4, 2005.

• See also Church of Shaddapology. Vanity. Delete abakharev 06:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - check the revision history of this project page. The above note originally admitted "This is a serious parody of Scientology from Melbourne Australia created by [Joe Dolce]." Vanity. --Bookandcoffee 06:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Defense: I have maintained an extremely effective social protest weekly newsletter for THREE YEARS with a subscriber base of over 100,000 people internationally. I am well-known for taking creative and serious positions on controversial social issues. This is in no way a VANITY article, by your definition - as thousands of subscribers will attest, (if perhaps you would like me to have them email you directly in my next newsletter with support.) I suggest you give serious consideration to what is intended by my entry - looking at the implications - and the ways that it can be expanded as the Church of Shaddapology is granted status as a registered religion in the upcoming months. ~~Joe Dolce, Nov 4, 2005.

• Delete. —Brim 08:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:V with zero Google hits see [2]. However, the article on Joe Dolce is a mess. In case, you are wondering he meets WP:NMG through having a number 1 hit in countries such as Australia and the UK with Shaddup You Face in 1980-81. That song is worthy of an article both because it is one of Australia's biggest selling songs and its importance see [3]. If there is such a newsletter, it can be mentioned as part of either a rewritten article on Joe Dolce or on the song. Capitalistroadster 09:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: Please see precedent for this type of entry in: Church of the SubGenius. JD Nov 5, 2005

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 09:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe at wikicities, but not here I think. It's either vanity or a spoof, take your pick, and definitely does not compare with SubGenius for notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems similar to other parody religions. If we have entries for Church of the Subgenius, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and Invisible Pink Unicorn I can't really see any reason to delete this one. It should be put into a more wikified format, however.
• Delete. Anyone can make a parody religion. To make one well-known enough for an encyclopedia article takes a lot more. --Carnildo 00:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, and likely to remain so. -- WormRunner | Talk 02:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete While it is great that apparently the man who wrote and recorded one of the highest selling songs in Australian history is writing for Wikipedia, he would be better served beefing up the Joe Dolce article (and perhaps adding a relevant image). --Roisterer 03:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No Google hits, NN. Cynicism addict 04:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete..googled no hits. non notable.--Dakota ? e 04:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Not significant. Not funny. Only one significant author, with no non-vanity edits to his name. (cf Joe Dolce which probably deserves to live but needs a big trim; Shaddap You Face dito; Difficult Women thinly disguised vanity for a friend; Lin Van Hek pure vanity on behalf of the same friend) Joe, I liked your song, but your pages, they aren't of the same high intellectual quality. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETION. - The FINAL Deletion. The MOTHER of All Deletions. " - Ok Folks, I bow to the consenus regarding deletion of Shaddapopogy and The Church of Shaddapology as unsuitable for Wikipedia. Delete away and I trust you get a warm feeling from it. (Although I do recall that Walt Disney had a 'cabinet' of ten advisors and would only go ahead on one of his ideas if NINE of them thought it was bad. I don't think Walt wouldn't have done too well on Wikipedia either. I noticed Shaddapology got one KEEP and even though it was unsigned, thank you O anonymous one! - if it was good enough for Mickey Mouse, it's good enough for me.) Some comments: ' Carnildo - 'anyone can make a parody religion?? Really?? Let those amongst you who have made a parody religion cast the first stone. Biting the newcomer. Go to the back of the Wikipedia class. The deepest comment of course was Ben Aveling's 'agrodolce' (sweet and sour) encouragement, ' I liked your song - but your pages aren't of the same high INTELLECTUAL quality. ' Think about that one. I will admit that 'Shaddap You Face' had more footnotes. Point taken. Say, if anyone is interested on the true meaning of BITING, look at how 'Shaddap You Face' has been trashed (and praised) by every type of critic on this planet over the past 25 years, read the Review Section of my website - I have put them all there to remind me (and all of us) to be humble.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~dwomen/files/JDPress.html.

Finally, I think this whole 'vanity' issue on Wikipedia is defective, disempowering and destructive thinking, folks, sorry. In Australia, it is known as 'pulling your head in,' and 'the tall poppy syndrome' - one is not supposed to dress loudly or stand out too much. To Think too loudly. To think outside the box. Otherwise they get the chop. God forbid, you don't get a Google Hit. So one is not supposed to blow one's own trumpet? Would someone please tell that to Muhammed Ali (I am the GREATEST!), Jesus Christ ( I am the SON OF GOD). Salvadore Dali (' Before Dali, nothing!) PT Barnum (The Greatest Show on Earth) and pretty much every pioneering inventor and artist who has ever lived. . . The REVERSE is actually true about trumpet blowing. As Louis Armstrong once quipped, 'Who else is supposed to blow it?' I believe that the best one to write about one's own work - is always oneself. Joe Dolce, Nov 5, 2005 Melbourne.

Joe,

You're blowing your trumpet in a library.

My suggestion, and I'll help with this if anyone else thinks it's a good idea, is for the page Joe Dolce (the page about Joe Dolce that we all own) to be trimmed down and kept, and most of the lists of achievements and the stuff on the shadapology pages and so on to be moved to user:dolcej (the page about Joe Dolce that (I gather) Joe Dolce owns).

Regards, Ben Aveling 23:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable parody religion. No evidence of its supposed 100,000 adherents. --Cnwb 07:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we BJAODN a purportedly real-life pisstake? ～J.K. 23:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable vanity. And Ben, yes I like your suggestion above. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, as this all will be deleted soon anyway, I thought it wouldn't hurt to reveal the secret Cosmology of Shaddapogy which is now available, for a limited time only, on the Shaddapology page, for those who wish to continue your ascent on the Elevator of the Sacred Putana. Normally, you have to reach the 13th level before this is revealed but we're having a SPECIAL this week . . . . 'to be continued . . . ' L. Joe Dolce

• Delete, unverifiable. Snottygobble | Talk 06:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we have consensus. And I think Joe has enough time to grab anything we wants to keep. Who wants the honours? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:25, 9 November 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.