Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Karen Importance Test


 * 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 Delete. Hiding talk 18:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Karen Importance Test
Regrettably, this is not particularly well-used or referred to. Not valid in project namespace. Stifle 09:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to some kind of notability test that actually makes sense and is not easily treated as an argument out of spite. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 19:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, or refactor as a policy proposal in the project namespace. --kingboyk 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- it is clear, from the discussion on AfD re Karen (Pokémon) that this is little mroe than a disguised attack page targeting a particular fandom. -- Simon Cursitor 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete it seems clear from the Karen AFD that this character isn't as non-notable as whoever made WP:KIT would like to believe.  It doesn't seem likely that we'll ever have anything like a "all subjects less notable than N should be deleted, and all subjects more notable than N should be kept" as a criterion. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Karen AFD failed spectacularly, and her notability in the eyes of the community has been settled (not to my liking necessarily, but I'm happy to go with the community). That makes this page redundant. --kingboyk 06:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, wrong namespace. Ashibaka tock 06:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. I have moved, by the way, this from the shortcut (which should not be the main title!).  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  15:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. I found this page funny. If anything, I interpreted it as poking fun at those who say "Person X is at least as important as a pokemon character!". Andjam 12:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Abstain on grounds of embarassment. Andjam 09:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you have interpreted the page wrong. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-02-1 22:49
 * Keep: Just out of curiosity, did anyone actually read the humor tag? -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 23:39, 3 February 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.