Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (0th nomination)


 * Wikipedia- I'm re-posting this discussion, which was deleted without discussion, or justification earlier today. If there is some rule that says procedures do not need to be followed, or if this was a mistake, perhaps someone could explain. Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 02:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

NOTE it appear some users mistoke this request for deletion of the page wikipedia as the main page. Please read carefully!


 * Ideally should be kept, but should have the same fate as Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia, for all the same reasons. The Fellowship of the Troll 20:12, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's just some old obscure website with only a few hundred thousand pages which only gets a few million google hits. Deletaholic Maniac 20:27, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - unless Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia is kept too, in which case keep both. Deletomatic 21:04, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an interesting problem... it will never have anything but an "insider" POV.  Nevertheless I think we're important enough to deserve a page.  moink 21:11, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and grow up. Angela. 21:17, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree. I can't believe I'm reading this. Andrewa 11:59, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for the Wikiholics they need something to do Archivist 21:19, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice Angela, the header to the page asks people to justify the reason for their vote, rather than insult people though - I'm glad you agree that self-referential articles are fine, perhaps you want to spell out why you support keeping this one?The Fellowship of the Troll 21:30, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Where at the page header is written that voters have to justify or give a reason? "Explain your reasoning for every page you list here [...]" refers to the submitter of a VfD entry as far as I understand it. -- mkrohn 00:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, of course, it refers to the listing, not the voting. Courtsey, rather than the header, may prod Angela to explain her inconsistancy, I am trying to understand her reasoning, and trying not to assume it is simple bias based on her personal preferences.The Fellowship of the Troll 00:36, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * If everyone whose article is/was listed on VfD reacts the same way we would loose even more time with nonsense. I don't think that the Wikipedia is the appropriate place for such "tit for tat"-games. Please take this "nomination" back. -- mkrohn 00:36, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Please, there's no need to resort to abuse. It isn't 'tit-for-tat games', it's an attempt at logical consistancy. The other article was listed for deletion because it was self referential. Surely the same rules should apply to all articles? The Fellowship of the Troll 00:39, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that I don't have an opinion about the other article. From looking at the discussion page I see a posting of Eloquence giving three reasons why this article violates Wikipedia policy. This means that there are other reasons besides the one you cited. 1. these reasons do not apply to Wikipedia, 2. the main page is not an article like the other one which wants to be an article, meaning a comparison is just invalid, 3. it is hopefully clear to everyone that deleting the main page is not an option, 4. we are all wasting our time with this, it was a good joke (at least I smiled in the beginning), but now it's time to remove this entry, thanks -- mkrohn 01:27, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * First off, it looks as though you think I am listing the Main Page for deletion, I am not, I am listing the article entitled Wikipedia. Secondly, you're right - Eloquence listed three reasons, which were:
 * 1.that it was not written neutrally (see NPOV) - it is, but in any event, the usual response would be to edit, rather than delete.
 * 2.that is is not written encyclopedically - see news style - it is, a least as much as many articles, but, again editing would be a better response.
 * 3.it includes empty sections - it no longer does, but again, filling them in would have been better.
 * The fact that it is your point of view that everyone is wasting their time on a joke displays the degree of predjudice applied to anything which challenges groupthink. This article does not fit the criteria for deletion, you and others know it, and yet continue to try to delete or marginalise it without serious justification. It is a farcical abuse of process and displays immense narrow mindedness. The Fellowship of the Troll 02:00, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Even the submitter has admitted that he did not nominate this for deletion because he actually thought it should be deleted, but rather to 'make a point'. I think that in itself is sufficient to settle this discussion.  I am highly tired of twits 'making a point' by doing stupid stuff and then saying, 'Look! The rules let me do this!'  It's juvenile in the extreme and I add my voice to Angela's "Grow Up!". &mdash;Morven 22:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - The insider POV is a set of facts worthy of a single article. - Texture 22:08, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * keep - mkrohn 00:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * This is moronic. Keep. Tannin 11:26, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, notice that there are already plenty enough dissenters to demonstrate that there is no possibility of a consensus to delete, and that this discussion can now be closed. Anyone who wishes to continue to discuss the proposal may, of course, continue to do so here, but they need not trouble themselves with the delusion that it will mean anything. Tannin 11:26, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)