Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism


 * 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 keep: the nomination was invalid because it did not include a policy-based reason to delete. The subject page is patently not "nonsense." ➥the Epopt 21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't-give-a-fuckism
nonsense page Ken S. 17:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. You could at least try to make a good nomination instead of randomly declaring it nonsense. -Amarkov blahedits 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete With all due respect, I personally wish for this page to be deleted. To me, it is quite pointless and offending to several users, as shown on the Rudeness setion of this page. I agree with them, so I beg of you, please delete this page. Thanks very much. After all, after all ,I do not really want to be cursed at, and I believe the F word is quite insulting, no matter how many people say cursing is not the same as insulting. 69.122.3.19 17:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, 69.122.3.19 I am curious as to why you edit other peoples talk pages by removing or altering content on the user talk pages of a number of other users e.g. Uioh or Aidoflight. What username are you exactly I think you are Aidoflight and looking at you also seem to have been Ntyfj ? Oh boy this is confusing. Ttiotsw 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Um... I reccomend you go read Fuck. I don't understand why that doesn't offend you just as much. -Amarkov blahedits 17:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone find it ironic that this entire MFD could be resolved with the same essay we're debating? Heh. There is cursing on Wikipedia, it's not censored, if you have a problem with it there's really nothing you can do but deal with it.  Dooms Day349  17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs some cleanup, but it presents good points.  Companionable to Don't be a dick.   Dooms  Day349  17:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I like the page, and have edited on it. Original deletion nomination by user ' was inappropriate for the namespace, and I noted that this same user has recently nominated other pages (mostly related to sexual topics) for deletion in an apparent effort to censor WP (see discussion for Erotic Spanking). The results of those discussions were I believe 100% keep. I believe (and I hope correctly) that WP:NONSENSE does not apply here, only in the main article namespace. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with this article that can't be resolved by discussion''' and editing, not deletion. David Spalding ( ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NONSENSE applies anywhere, but it also only covers things which have no meaning. This most certainly has meaning. -Amarkov blahedits 18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Any editor or user who believes this important, insightful article and concept is "nonsense" can (in the most polite and respectful tone possible) can pretty much kiss my black ass find another hobby than editing on Wikipedia. NinaOdell | Talk 18:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing that stops me from just doing that right now is that the nominator seems to be marginally experienced. -Amarkov blahedits 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to see Ken S. commit more than just two words ("nonsense page") to this nomination. The original user who nominated this for deletion never gave any reasoning. So I think that the precedent has already been established. >:) David Spalding (  ☎   ✉   ✍  )


 * Strong Delete This page is of no coherent use to anyone, in my opinion. It is also a page of disgusting language and what I certainly did NOT expect at an online enyclopedia as fine as Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that this article should be at once deleted. It is, indeed, a "nonsense page", in my opinion, as Ken S. said. Uioh 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome back - any chance of explaining this ? A most unfortunate edit. Ttiotsw 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm - but I was under the impression and  were one and the same person. Chovain(t 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete I entirely agree with Uioh, Ken S. and 69.122.3.19 and I wish to express my opinion that this pointless article is deleted at once. Librax 20:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Dumb and boring article. Agree with all of the Deleters, that's all, dudes! Khgj 21:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Khgj only has 5 edits and Librax has 11. Both accounts created recently. User RiseRobotRise made this comment
 * Note User Khgj removed my comment above, it was later reinstated by IP User 72.197.38.201, which is actually me because I forgot to log in. RiseRobotRise 03:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dubious, very dubious.  Dooms  Day349  22:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak Delete Page can't be serious, does have a few good things to say, some elements can be moved to WP:COOL. Its quite halarious I have to say. RiseRobotRise 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. No valid reason put forth for deletion. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 23:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article was recently revised (after being MFD'd) and is much more coherent and is definitely not "nonsense", as many describe. The article obviously is stating that Wikipedians can become too attached to Wikipedia, which may create conflict and stress on Wikipedia. I do not see how this is nonsense and if language is the only reason for deletion (which is not the reason given for the nomination), then isn't the proper way of dealing with this to edit the article (not that I necessarily support removing profanity from this article)? —Jfowler27 23:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I ask the nominator to give a reasoned analysis of this essay like he/she would give an article on any talk page. In my opinion, this nomination is "nonsense". If the article were renamed "Dont give a hoot-ism", would folks still have objections? NinaOdell | Talk 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that, thats one of the main reasons I voted "very week delete" 72.197.38.201 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a valid nomination and usefull advice to editors. --Bduke 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and ignore the sockpuppets. If strong apathy offends you, you probably shouldn't be on the Internet, much less Wikipedia. JuJube 00:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - No policy cited. Agree this looks like puppetry too with IPs and username edits that make this look like a concert party of editors acting as some kind of self-appointed cleanup cabal. Ttiotsw 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong (Fuckin') Keep No solid grounds for deletion. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least move it to an area acknowledged to be for fun only. Xiner (talk, email) 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because... why? -Amarkov blahedits 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nonsense? Offensive? Fuck that. --- RockMFR 05:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Spleen-venting, aggro, silly and kind of a useless page, but nothing outrageous. Bwithh 08:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or usery to the page's creator. I am kind of understanding what this page is trying to say and the philosophy it represents, but why all the "fuck"s? Seriously, does it enhance the essay's content in any way? To me it looks like the essay was made as a provocative contribution, and while such things may be acceptable for userspace, they serve very little purpose in the Wikipedia namespace. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonsense. People who oppose its deletion don't seem to be "not giving a fuck" about it either. :rolls eyes: --Kjoonlee 12:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The writer of the essay seems to be have written it under a "bad way to not give a fuck" spell. That can't be good. --Kjoonlee 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nonsense? Maybe you understood it wrong. Not caring about Wikipedia can help you become calmer in discussions and depend on it less. This essay has a meaningful purpose, and there isn't a valid reason for its removal.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   13:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't read it closely enough; if you agree with it, you wouldn't be caring about this discussion. ;) --Kjoonlee 14:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is, everyone who doesn't think the article needs to be deleted automatically puts into practice what it discusses, which is inherently flawed. —Jfowler27 17:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Almost everyone saying this article needs to be deleted says it is nonsense, yet not one of them seems to have read WP:NONSENSE or properly conveys the meaning of nonsense. Something is not necessarily nonsense if you do not understand it. I am not smart enough to understand the math behind the string theory in physics, but that does not mean that it is nonsense. If you do not understand an article, the best way to go about changing that, is not to argue for its deletion, rather, discuss how to make the article more accessible on its talk page. For those of you who believe this article is insulting of offensive, please read the article about the word fuck. It has many uses and connotations, not all of which are necessarily offensive (or meant to be). —Jfowler27 17:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DGAF, but count me as Strong keep. This is an essay that takes a humourous approach to a serious topic.  Chovain(t 19:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep though I personally despise obsenities, the essay is meant to compliment WP:COOL as mentioned above; and I do not see much harm in keeping it. Some may call things like WP:BEANS nonsense, yet the page still remains up and some regard it as a community favorite.  I personally do not give a darn (using a more minor expletitive) in the end as to what happens to it but keeping it will not hurt too many people.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  19:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong DGAF --Shirahadasha 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stong Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a comedy page. HalfShadow 21:06, 15 January 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.