Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of really really stupid article ideas that you should not create

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of really really stupid article ideas that you should not create
List is arbitrary, hard to define, and could be insulting to newbies --Silas Snider (talk) 22:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or restore to this version. --SPUI (talk) 22:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You know, I don't think this is such a bad idea (except for the title). I do seem to recall reading something similar in a FAQ somewhere, but the Wikipedia namespace tends to be rather convoluted. A n00b faq would be useful imho (but it should be relatively short since people tend not to actually read faqs ). Keep but rename. And delete some junk from it, such as the link to Millionth Article (since it's pretty empty, and n00bs wouldn't know that in the first place). Radiant_* 22:34, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup and retitle. Link to it at the bottom of each new edit page (where it now says don't create an article to promote yourself, etc.) --Angr 22:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Might have a use, but it needs a hell of a lot of cleaning up - I just tried and failed to get a nice version from the history, but even once you get past SPUI's edits it's difficult. Deleting would at least get rid of the problem, I suppose. ANd I'm sure there's pages elsewhere that say the same thing more friendlily. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 23:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It's in the humour section. Newbies aren't going to see it unless they visit the humour section. Complaining about it being "arbitary, hard to define" is hilarious. Wincoote 23:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Wincoote and because it tickles my funny bone.. Preisler 00:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Um...not all of these are even agreed upon (e.g. high schools or pop songs). Could easily be construed as a slap at individual editors. Delete. Meelar (talk) 01:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's hardly insulting to give people an idea of what not to do. Gamaliel 02:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 04:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As I commented the previous time this came up for VfD: "... including this one." Weak delete or at least retitle.  The fact that the article is categorized in the humor category will be missed by most readers; it appears to be just another policy-related article in the Wikipedia: namespace.  As Meelar noted, not all editors and not all admins agree about policy on some of these points.  Not funny enough for BJAODN, not quite appropriately written for Wikipedia: policy namespace.  Barno 16:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Don't bite the newcomers. Lacrimosus 23:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Both the tone of the article and the name itself are too insulting to be kept. Agree with Barno that many will not notice that it is in the humor section. DaveTheRed 23:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly retitle or rephrase the intro. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and make it more serious. Saopaulo1 07:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the gist of it in some form, somewhere; it's actually quite good advice. -R. fiend 02:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, though the basic idea is sound, and useful ideas from this should be incorporated into other, more "legitimate" policy and quasi-policy pages. -Sean Curtin 02:04, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This is encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 18:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand judiciously. Link to Danube class starship while you're at it. Avriette 01:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, noting that a sense of humor is a helpful thing, and that VFD has no jurisdiction over the Wikipedia namespace. &mdash; Dan | Talk 03:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've just added a box to make the humorous nature of the page explicit upon first viewing, and, in addition, have created a serious version of the article at List of bad article ideas. (As a side note, if this article survives VfD, I'm probably going to rename the article "List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create" (note the extra 'really's) to make the fact that the article is supposed to be humorous even more explicit.) Does anybody have any objections? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, hehehehe, is this intended for use on april 1? :-) Kim Bruning 10:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's just some tongue-in-cheek venting by us vicious evil deletionists. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 22:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I laughed. Others will too. —Markaci 2005-03-28 T 22:32 Z
 * Keep - there's now a legit version of the same, and this has comedy value. -- Kizor 09:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is a good thing. --Haggis 09:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Meta with its friend WP:DICK. Snowspinner 17:13, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand and clean up. --Frenchman113 13:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Inflamatory. --InShaneee 20:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.