Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentient puddle

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 was delete. Sr 13 04:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentient puddle[edit]

This is just a large Douglas Adams quote preceded by a simple summary of it. 'Sentient puddle' was a phrase used by Douglas Adams ten years ago, which doesn't seem to have entered any sort of wider usage since (the only sources given are from people directly quoting Adams and attributing the phrase to him) - it fails WP:NEO. The Douglas Adams article already has a section dedicated to the quote, covering the exact the same ground as the introductory paragraph, and the full quotation is already in Wikiquote. Delete. McGeddon 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't even know if it's notable enough to be in Wikiquote. - Myanw 10:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The section in his main article is just fine; if the extended information in this article were to be merged into that article, it would appear to carry undue weight in comparison to the rest of the article. --Charlene 11:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There actually isn't any extended information, apart from the analogy being quoted in full - the introductory paragraph is virtually identical to the section in the Adams article. --McGeddon 11:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I'd disagree with the esteemed editor before and say this would be valid for WikiQuote, as well as perhaps a discussion of religion itself or an article on those who dispute the humanist principles (if that's the name of it), but it's not notable or substantial enough for its own article. Interesting to read, yes, but leaving its mention in the Adams article (or in religious discussion themes) would work better. IL-Kuma 23:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Although this is a rather amusing analogy, it really has no real notability and has achieved no notoriety in public discourse. Also, echo everything McGeddon said about this info being found elsewhere.--DoctorWorm 07:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.