Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Drama


 * 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 Userfied to User:JzG/Criteria for Speedy Drama. — xaosflux  Talk  06:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for Speedy Drama
Of course meant as a good faith attempt at being humorous, but I think it ought to be removed from the Wikipedia namespace per the concerns of WP:BEANS. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with nom, the article could lead to people trying out mischief as stated under WP:BEANS (why anyone would want to stick beans up their nose is beyond me!), leading to violation of WP:POINT. --tgheretford (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the funny bit in this. All I see is people using it for real. - Mgm|(talk) 12:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. If the wrong person sees it, it will cause a "wikidrama". It's almost like a guideline for someone wanting to disrupt WP, despite the humourous intentions. James086Talk 13:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not too concerned with someone coming across the essay and trying to implement the suggestions, but it's not particularly funny.  Probably not worth leaving it around in the hopes that a better humorist comes along and makes it actually funny, either.  Geoffrey Spear 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- can't cause anything but trouble. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It synthesizes some points from WP:TRUTH, The Most Important Thing Possible, The Wrong Version, and How to Win an Argument, thus becoming both useless and un-funny. -Amarkov blahedits 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... wow, JzG made it? In that case, I'm going with Weak keep, since I assume he has a good rationale. -Amarkov blahedits 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. !!!!!CLICK HERE TO BLOW UP THE WORLD!!!!! See, it's just like that. I hate when an article is deleted when it only provides indirect, inconspicuous references to people "actually doing it" (like that long term abuse page about Willy on Wheels). This, however, is different because it contains direct references to "actually doing it". Delete. SupaStarGirl 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BEAN.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: No !vote, but I saw no evidence the page creator was notified of this discussion, so I've left a note on his talkpage. Newyorkbrad 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I delete it already? Tito xd (?!?) 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would hold off until the page creator responds. -Amarkov blahedits 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - JzG blowin' off steam should not be forbidden. Why not embelish the piece instead of deleting it? Beans does not apply due to the scarcity of screwball articles over which to contend not already present. Metarhyme 04:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Gonna have to go with Keep as well. By the way, the article sums up why I don't edit articles about "real" stuff and stick to fictional hoohah (although content disputes about Japanese cartoon characters can get just as heated). Danny Lilithborne 04:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above WP:BEANS concerns. That it's not funny (to me) doesn't help, but that's not realy a deletion criterion.  Eluchil404 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh. Who cares?  This was a response to a nonsensical thread on someone's Talk page.  The idea appealed to me.  It made someone laugh who was feeling got at, which is what I wanted. Do you really think  the idiots need a step by step guide to doing what they already do? And remember, friends, that "funny" is not an objectively defined concept.  This user posts using a British sense of humour.  Note the "u". Guy (Help!) 09:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or userfy. It's the holidays, folks.  Or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There seems to be minimal BEANS concern in that this is such an obvious problem to start with anyways and while it does occasionally create some drama is usually nipped quickly in the bud. And it is (to me at least) highly amusing. JoshuaZ 20:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy is probably the best answer to this one, otherwise weak keep works too. I might have enjoyed it more if I'd seen the original thread it grow out of. Newyorkbrad 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Delete, now – Gurch 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason? "Ugh" isn't a very clear deletion rationale.  Eluchil404 04:48, 24 December 2006 (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.