Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 7, 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Lamest edit wars ever
There is no way that this page can contribute to Wikipedia, either in content or in keeping things civil and unbiased; this page, by its very nature, is biased and disruptive. The only possible thing that keeping this page on Wikipedia would do would be to stir up negative emotions. Almafeta 1 July 2005 13:36 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, valid part of wikipedia history. User:noname 7 Jul 2005-
 * Keep, as the person who started this page in February 2004 after a conversation on IRC, it was originally "dedicated to whimsy." And as such, it is harmless. - Fuzheado | Talk 6 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's the same kind of page as BJAODN. Besides, "This page is dedicated to edit wars with lame or silly causes, not to exhaustively documenting all the real and contentious edit wars", so wars that stir up negative emotions shouldn't end up being on it. --cesarb 1 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)
 * leepDunc|&#9786; 1 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)
 * Delete (or keep as a section of BJAODN ) - too self-referential, making this Wiki-vanity. -- BD2412 talk July 1, 2005 13:51 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, this serves as a valuable object-lesson. -- BD2412 talk July 1, 2005 14:15 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid part of Wikihistory (wistory?) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 1, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
 * Keep but put that humour tag thing on it. I personally found parts of it hilarious, and I literally laughed out loud at least twice: "Is the cat depicted really smiling?" Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  July 1, 2005 15:03 (UTC)
 * Keep keep keep o. m. g. PLEASE KEEP! --Mothperson 1 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's not doing any harm in the Wikipedia: namespace. --bainer (talk) 1 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's useful to refer people to. David | Talk 1 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike Department of Fun, Wikichess, or BJAODN, this actually serves a purpose by giving editors some clue as to when any given edit war is just too petty. &mdash; Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)
 * Keep; an extremely useful page for the community, and everyone who has even been in an edit war, thought about getting in one, or even witnessed one, ought to read it regularly as a means of maintaining perspective. Antandrus  (talk) 1 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)
 * Delete- inherently POV     1 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)
 * It's not an article. Gazpacho
 * Keep; it serves a purpose, and everyone who's ever been in or considered being in an edit war should read it. --Idont Havaname 1 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
 * Keep - That, and it's funny as hell to read. Who writes that stuff? humblefool&reg; 2 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)
 * Keep, educational for newcomers. Gazpacho 2 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
 * Keep... uh, per Gazpacho, yeah, that's the ticket... that and some people get their jollies from reading about utter stupidity, and I support the right of such people to have easy access to such material. 141.154.205.115 2 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)
 * Keep Waerth 2 July 2005 12:12 (UTC)
 * Keep! --KFP 2 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
 * Keep! Mad funny! wich is good!BeefCake 2/7/05 8:48 AM
 * Keep. A little fun is a good idea once in a while. *Dan* July 2, 2005 13:28 (UTC)
 * Keep: These are good examples for new users of what not to do, and besides, some of them are quite funny, IMO. --IByte 3 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
 * Keep: Maybe the person trying to get rid of this, is a user who started a lame Edit war himself. Pacific Coast Highway July 3, 2005 04:31 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator, who says "this page, by its very nature, is biased and disruptive," fails to get the point. Wikipedia pages are allowed to be biased.  Encyclopedia pages are not.  This page is useful for the way it documents the ridiculous problems that ensue when people attempt to make the encyclopedia POV. Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 16:54 (UTC)
 * Keep it's funny and informative
 * Strong Keep. Hedley 3 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Can we put this VfD page in BJAODN? -- Phroziac (talk) 3 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)
 * Nothing humorous about it. Almafeta 4 July 2005 07:07 (UTC)
 * Phroziac, I am sure Almafeta was doing this in good faith (WP:AGF I fell like a broken record, broken record, broken...)--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename to something more NPOV... What constitutes "lame!?" What is this!? Encyclopedia Dramatica or something!? -newkai | talk | contribs July 4, 2005 18:44 (UTC)
 * Keep If we can have chess matches, wikistories, and/or BJAODN, we can certainly have this page.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with one stipulation: remove the biased remarks (i.e. Nancy Reagan is old) - the idea itself is funny, but let's avoid meanness) - User:Darkhawk 5 July 2005 22:56 EST
 * Old is baised?--Tznkai 6 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
 * Keep; I've yet to see anyone upset by this page. The beauty of it is that most sides can, invariably, agree on what constitutes a lame edit war - the only difference is that they disagree which POV is the self-evident one and which one the lame one :-). It's in the wikipedia namespace, it amuses people, the only problem with it is people quietly sneaking in and trying to "correct" the topic under dispute... Shimgray 6 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
 * Keep - we all need a good laugh Peregrine   AY   7 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The Death penalty to whomever dared try to delete this venerable WikInstitution.--Jpbrenna 7 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Aside from humor, the fact that some could potentially learn from these as "very bad examples" pushes my vote up to a strong keep. You (Talk) July 7, 2005 20:50 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.