Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create (3rd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was Keep —  xaosflux  Talk  20:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:STUPID

 * List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create
 * Image:Wikipedia List of really really really stupid article ideas that you really really really should not create.ogg
 * (shortcuts) WP:STUPID, WP:Stupid, WP:DUMB
 * (redirects)
 * List of really really stupid article ideas that you should not create
 * List of really stupid article ideas that you really should not create
 * Humorous list of bad article ideas

(Note: prior MFD snowball kept on 12 September 2006)

The article is meets with both WP:TROLL,WP:BEANS and WP:BITE. plus does wikipedia need more joke articles; since WP:SILLY was deleted this is a precedent to delete articles like it. And the media file too be deleted because it is the spoken file for the "guideline". -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 01:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nomination
 * I'd like to point out to the nom that both links cited are essays. It might be a good idea to cite a policy lest this MFD be closed again as a bad faith nom.--WaltCip 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * SUPER DUPER STRONG IRREVERSIBLE KEEP - It's funny, it's harmless, and you're all a bunch of robotic, boulder-headed, unfeeling deletionists. Userfy - Good in theory, but not really of beneficial use in project space.--WaltCip 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator is incorrect in WP:SILLY is inactive, not deleted. Not expressing any opinion on this discussion for now. JoshuaZ 02:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Respond Actually, on the MfD for WP:SILLY the decision was "Basically delete". Though the desicion was altered in its DRV -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 02:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The page gives examples of what WP:ISNOT without showing red links, but also shows exceptions to the NOT rules where the subjects would meet notability guidelines. Slambo (Speak) 10:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not help the encyclopedia, already covered by WP:NOT  ^ demon [omg plz]  15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to WP:NOT and not funny; actually, it's quite BITEy. --Core desat 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - a humorous way of getting across WP:NOT would not be an inappropriate essay. I could do without the cat pictures though. John Carter 20:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Carbon Monoxide  23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If you do keep it though, add this one to the list - List of things I made up in school one day. Yes, someone actually tried to create that. I guess even WP:NOT could meet WP:BEANS. - Rocket000 08:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep They are good examples of what should not be created, and humour doesn't hurt. Quite obvious no offense is meant.--Victor falk 10:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep "This page is intended as humor. If you have been sent here by another user after creating an article that might qualify on the following list, you may safely tell them that they sent you to the wrong place. The place she/he/it probably wanted to send you was to Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas." Yes, it might be biting to give a new user a link to this, but you're not supposed to do that. This page is probably not for everyone, but some users may find humour a more useful way to absorb policy, and I don't see a reason why humorfied versions of policy pages should necessarily be deleted (to address the arguments above, I don't think this page is redundant to WP:NOT, but is rather a means of illustrating it; just because it can be used as a means for biting doesn't mean it should be, and I don't see how WP:TROLL is relevant). --ais523 12:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or userfy. It's a harmless humour page. Lurker  (said · done) 12:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Harmless, sure, but can you just imagine someone saying "Delete per WP:STUPID" to a newcomer to AFD?--WaltCip 13:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, on the rather minimal precondition that they know that blue text means it's a link, they can click on it *and see that it's a joke not meant as a WP:BITE--Victor falk 13:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The page isn't designed to be cited in AfD, as the disclaimer makes clear. Lurker  (said · done) 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Harmless humor page. Jokes never hurt anyone. I wouldn't be opposed to userifying, but deletion isn't necessary. GlassCobra (Review) 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - harmless, serves a real purpose. Anyone who would be offended by this probably shouldn't be allowed near anything electrical.  Neil   ム  09:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's an essay, as the article makes clear. WP:BITE would be violated by the context of the link to this page, not the page itself. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't see it doing any harm by itself. The primary concern with BJAODN was WP:DENY (and not the fact that it was a humour page), and that doesn't really apply here. No objection to it being userifyed. Hut 8.5 15:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, remove the "stupid". "Stupid" kind of comes off as uncivil to me. Changing it to "dumb ideas" is a bit less offensive.  Other than that, it's completely harmless, and actually very funny.  What's with the campaign to scrub any sort of humor from the Wiki lately, anyways?  Aren't we allowed to laugh? (and I think the issue with the BJAODN pages was more copyright than anything else)  --UsaSatsui 15:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep harmless, illustrates several valid points that do have certain level of community approval. If anyone's offended, they just need to grow a tiny little bit more skin. Not a whole lot of it. That's an important thing to consider. Retitle if necessary. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; WP:BJAODN was due to copyrights and WP:DENY (neither applicable here), not a desire to remove humor (although, by the point at which it was deleted, it was a shell of what it once was, and no longer funny), so no "precedent" claimed by the nominator exists. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: at worst harmless; at better has useful examples; at best brings a smile to the reader's face, reducing stress (and thus possibly the number of edit wars). —Quasirandom 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Deletion is not the answer! Jesus is the answer! Work on Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, not meta bullshit! MessedRocker (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless. Raul654 01:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and ^demon. Although if it's kept I agree on shortening the length of the article a bit. All the "really"s is superfluous and "stupid" is subjective. -- 01:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Harmless humor. BJAODN was deleted because of GFDL and WP:DENY concerns, not humor problems. (Although all but the original wasn't that funny). Ne ra n e i   (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deleting humor because the underlying point is covered elsewhere would be very very very very very very bad. -Amarkov moo! 03:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete – If this is kept, I'll ask it to be moved to Wikipedia:Flying in the face of WP:BEANS. — Animum ''' |  talk ]] 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't stuff beans up your nose is about preventing people from inadvertently doing harmful stuff. This page is no more of a WP:BEANS violation than the idea of a freely-editable website is. MessedRocker (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, please keep I really enjoyed reading this page many months ago. I still wouldn't know about the 867-5309 song without it; need I say more? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:23, 14 October 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.