Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ignore all rules


 * 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.  

The result was Speedy keep per IAR and SNOW. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On a side note, due discussion on my talk page, I feel I should at least mention that the nomination was made by an attack account and the nom is now banned. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules
This policy is far too vague, and is often abused by those with an agenda who choose to interpret as they choose, not unlike the Qu'ran in the hands of a fanatic. -Bonny Eberndu (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, Nominations arguments are not compelling. undefinedUntil  15:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * removing from MFD 212.87.13.71 (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And who are you? undefinedUntil  15:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mark historical per the reasoning in Reduce confusion by following policy. Wikipedia, like any large community, ought to be governed by clear, consistent and general rules which apply equally to everyone. This is essential in ensuring that inexperienced editors (who contribute a very large part of our content) are not confused and are able to participate in the community; it is also essential to ensure that administrators and bureaucrats do not act arbitrarily, and follow the policies laid down by consensus of the community. Don't misunderstand me; IAR was, no doubt, very useful in the early, pioneering days of Wikipedia, when the community was small, and rigid rules were not needed. However, in a community with thousands of active editors, we need rules, and we need them to be followed in all cases. I don't doubt that this MfD will be closed soon on the grounds that it is an inappropriate forum, but I have given my view on the issue. WaltonOne 15:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and close now. You can't use an essay to mark a policy as historical. This is absurd. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2008 (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.