The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
SUPER DUPER STRONG IRREVERSIBLE KEEP - It's funny, it's harmless, and you're all a bunch of robotic, boulder-headed, unfeeling deletionists.Userfy - Good in theory, but not really of beneficial use in project space.--
WaltCip01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep The page gives examples of what
WP:ISNOT without showing red links, but also shows exceptions to the NOT rules where the subjects would meet notability guidelines.
Slambo(Speak)10:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep "This page is intended as humor. If you have been sent here by another user after creating an article that might qualify on the following list, you may safely tell them that they sent you to the wrong place. The place she/he/it probably wanted to send you was to Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas." Yes, it might be biting to give a new user a link to this, but you're not supposed to do that. This page is probably not for everyone, but some users may find humour a more useful way to absorb policy, and I don't see a reason why humorfied versions of policy pages should necessarily be deleted (to address the arguments above, I don't think this page is redundant to
WP:NOT, but is rather a means of illustrating it; just because it can be used as a means for biting doesn't mean it should be, and I don't see how
WP:TROLL is relevant). --
ais523 12:01, 10 October 2007 (
UTC)
Well, on the rather minimal precondition that they know that blue text means it's a link, they can click on it *and see that it's a joke not meant as a WP:BITE--
Victor falk13:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - harmless, serves a real purpose. Anyone who would be offended by this probably shouldn't be allowed near anything electrical.
Neilム09:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep I can't see it doing any harm by itself. The primary concern with BJAODN was
WP:DENY (and not the fact that it was a humour page), and that doesn't really apply here. No objection to it being userifyed. Hut 8.515:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep the article, remove the "stupid". "Stupid" kind of comes off as uncivil to me. Changing it to "dumb ideas" is a bit less offensive. Other than that, it's completely harmless, and actually very funny. What's with the campaign to scrub any sort of humor from the Wiki lately, anyways? Aren't we allowed to laugh? (and I think the issue with the BJAODN pages was more copyright than anything else) --
UsaSatsui15:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep harmless, illustrates several valid points that do have certain level of community approval. If anyone's offended, they just need to grow a tiny little bit more skin. Not a whole lot of it. That's an important thing to consider. Retitle if necessary. --wwwwolf (
barks/
growls)
16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep: at worst harmless; at better has useful examples; at best brings a smile to the reader's face, reducing stress (and thus possibly the number of edit wars). —
Quasirandom22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and
^demon. Although if it's kept I agree on shortening the length of the article a bit. All the "really"s is superfluous and "stupid" is subjective. --
User:Charitwo/Sig 01:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Harmless humor. BJAODN was deleted because of GFDL and WP:DENY concerns, not humor problems. (Although all but the original wasn't that funny).
Neranei(talk)03:29, 12 October 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 page's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.