Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Keep slightly early closure per SNOW. — xaosflux  Talk  05:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create
This really, really, really isn't funny. There is no point to it at all. WP:DENY. We really, really, really shouldn't recognizing stupidity. — The Future 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous VfD: Votes for deletion/List of really really stupid article ideas that you should not create --ais523 11:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This was previously nominated for deletion (here) in Apr 2005. The decision then was a clear "keep".  It actually was created with a point - to provide a humorous set of examples to help explain what topics are almost never a good idea to write about.  Note that the actual links on the page go to some truly exceptional articles (or, in a few cases, to relevant archived deletion discussions).  They make it clear that you have to achieve pretty high standards to write an article on one of these topics.  Whether it is achievable or not is debatable but it's unfair to say that there was "no point to it at all."  Rossami (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; I personally think WP:DENY doesn't apply here, as this is supposed to be a (silly) educational tool, about article ideas good faith contributors might have that are really really really stupid, which is a disjoint set from vandalism. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment this list has nothing to do with stupidity. Most of the things listed are added in good faith by people who are ignorant of certian details of wikipedia.Geni 01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as User:Fredil Yupigo; I was blocked and therefore are editing under an IP. 69.158.69.161 01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Striked vote because of block evasion. — The Future 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, not funny and completely pointless even for humor pages Coasttocoast 02:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Without this kind of stuff, Wikipedia will lose its community. Without a community, Wikipedia is nothing.  Anything that threatens the community makes me sad. --CableModem 02:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with BJAODN &mdash; it's a good page but not exactly worthy of a project page, and I'm sure BJAODN will be glad to take it in. —     04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and do not merge, good examples, not totally silly like BJAODN. Kusma (討論) 05:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Rather a good guideline for new editors, it could be moved to someones user subpage if it's voted for deletion by the majority. TehKewl1 06:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep per CableModem. I can see why somebody would want to delete it. Maybe a rename? Either way, in my view, pages like this offer some legitimate content while educating users and giving the community something to chuckle about. When I was still a pretty new user, finding pages like this and WP:NCR just about made my day. Community is important. Luna Santin 06:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds of common sense and the fact that WP:DENY isn't even a guideline, let alone policy, yet. Daniel.Bryant 07:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I can only agree with Rossami CharonX /talk 12:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Really, really, really stupid. Pointless. --Improv 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep More pointless meta-deletionism and improper implementation of WP:DENY. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, if for no other reason than it is really, really, really important for newbies to see the very first item on the list: "YOU".  Antandrus  (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as WP:DENY isn't even a policy. Besides, the article is clearly tagged as humorous. Whatever that may add to this discussion. Shadow1 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- Humor. ShakespeareFan00 20:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote, give a reason.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has been VfDed and it passed. Besides, harmless humor is a great thing. Why don't we delete WP:BJAODN after we nuke this one?--Frenchman113 on wheels! 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a page I'm fond of reading from time to time... :-) Ooh, we can almost make this a speedy keep, if we convince the one deleter... Wait... that's Improv? Kim Bruning 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. What the hell does WP:DENY have to do with this? the wub "?!"  21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Just a slightly humorous version of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. --Rory096 22:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. No question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Planetary (talk • contribs).
 * Keep. This just goes to show how bad an idea WP:DENY was in the first place. Denying that there is a problem - and refusing to accept good-natured ribbing over it - is a sign of a serious problem in the way people relate to Wikipedia. Captainktainer * Talk 00:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY isn't really a bad idea, it's just that this has nothing to do with WP:DENY and recently it's been used in far too many places than it was meant to be. --Rory096 00:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This handy checklist has stopped me from creating many an article. --W.marsh 02:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I fail to see how WP:DENY applies to this page. BryanG(talk) 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with WP:BAI and delete; failing that, merge WP:BAI with this one, delete WP:BAI, then move this one over it. Nikola 17:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Best. Article. Ever. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Yes, it's true, we shouldn't recongise stupidity, but we might as well give examples of it. Project2501a 21:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Really, really, really" keep. It's a handy tool that informs users what kinds of articles shouldn't be created and does so in such a manner that people might actually be compelled to read it. WP:DENY isn't relevent to this article. Jeff Silvers 02:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It`s a funny and good way to remind people of articles thay should not create, while some of the links show that common sense must be used. 24.20.69.240 08:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, if it wasn't for this article Wikipedia would be filled to the brim with spam. oTHErONE Contribs 10:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BEANS --pgk 13:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep historical interest... and its useful... ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for numerous reasons stated by others above. Jumbo Snails 02:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep What do you mean, WP:DENY? This has nothing to with vandalism. --ais523 11:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does NOT glorify vandalism, but is rather a humorous collection of the types of things which are so commonly deleted that they become a running gag. Actually, this is pretty good humor. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite amusing. Some P.   E  rson  23:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Not glorifying vandalism, but dealing with clueless newbieism. Andjam 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as doesn't matter. How can this hurt?  Just a bit of fun, I don't see at all why there is any need to delete this...  -Zapptastic (talk) 05:12, 12 September 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.