Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No capital letters

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 discussion was Delete as already done. Ebe 123 → report on my contribs. 10:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No capital letters


Per WP:SNOW, moved to userspace and CSD'd Wikipedia space redirect Gerardw (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a good faith essay, it's an attack against another essay. This was created by Gerardw immediately after his MfD nomination of Short horizontal line was closed, and there's no way I can see anything except a bad faith attack looking at the two side by side.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  10:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it looks to me like humour / satire, but not labelled as such. So if it is not labelled that way it should disappear as misleading. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The essay was written in good faith in response to Skomorokh's suggestion at the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Short horizontal line discussion, which three other editors said 'Keep per Skomorokh.' Gerardw (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. You're not rebutting his point about dashes, you're copying his format, making a non-serious argument, and capping it with "lameness abounds". It comes across as extremely condescending, and let's be brutally honest, if that's not exactly what you wanted, there are a hell of a lot of better options than "lameness abounds".  S ven M anguard   Wha?  12:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete snarky, pointy behaviour. Trout and tea recommended. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * comment. I am shocked and appalled by this. specifically, by the way in which the link at the top of the essay doesn't lead here and instead is red. or more specifically, by my sleepy inability to work out what the problem is and make the damn link work. -- hoary (blather) 01:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy so Gerardw can take another look at it, work out what he wants to say and try to make something out of it. -- Klein zach  15:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It currently says what I want it to say. From Jonathon Swift to Steven Colbert, satire has a long standing tradition in the English speaking world. I am unaware of any policy prohibiting its use in essays, and other satirical essays have been accepted by the community. As the longstanding standard here is Comment on the content, not the contributor, and this does exactly that, it is acceptable discourse. It should be noted that this essay and the one it references to a six-month old discussion at WP:MOS and are not particularly relevant; I had actually forgotten I had written until I saw the MFD notice on my talkpage. Gerardw (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. In view of that I am striking out my 'Userfy' opinion. -- Klein zach  01:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or Userfy. Essays need not reflect majority opinion.  They are allowed to use satire to make their point.  I consider this essay fine in project-space, but if we really think it's innapropriate there, there is absolutely no reason it isn't appropriate for user-space. Buddy431 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Simply not up to the standard of a public essay. Doesn't reflect well on WP. -- Klein zach  01:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * delete per absence of humour and besides capitals italics and hyperlinks do serve a purpose as does punctuation and quotation marks DVdm (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. To be a reasonable essay, it should give some context for its existance.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While this is a bit of a one-joke act, it's not an egrecious attack page and could theoretically be expanded into a more general argument against the supposed "dumbing down" of typography that Wikipedia's dash-enforcers are always on about. Userfication is a simple solution here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy - unfunny parody. While it's not strictly speaking a requirement that humour pages be funny, this one really does add nothing to Wikipedia; it's a shallow mockey of a strawman of an essay that was already tongue-in-cheek in the first place. Really, what's the point? Robofish (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2011 (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.