Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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.  

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Dragons flight with the reason: "we do not create pages to make fun of or attack our competitors, csd g10". —Doug Bell talk 05:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Doug beat me here. This variant of ROUGE was grossly inappropriate given the title and references to Brittanica. This deletion should not be considered to exclude the potential creation of other humor pages provided they avoid being designed in a way that suggests Wikipedia ridicules our competitors. The author is welcome to recieve a copy of the text, if she wants to use it to create a variant without the Brittanica references. Dragons flight 06:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.
This seems to be a humor page with most of the text lifted from WP:ROUGE, reversing the direction (Eng Lit types: do you know the proper word? Put it here.) of WP:ROUGE and substituting ‘B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.’ for the subject. Unless I’ve missed something, that’s a reference to the Encyclopædia Brittanica, which is a contemporary work. Now, humour is a fine thing, but I don’t think it’s proper for us to make fun of a major competitor like that. Also, the hyperbolic descriptions from WP:ROUGE are mildly offensive when applied to an outside entity. So I think it’s best not to keep this essay in any namespace, in its present form. (Or maybe I didn’t get the joke.) —xyzzyn 05:25, 24 March 2007 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.