Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you (2nd nomination)

 __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: WP:SNOW Keep. Deeply flawed nomination, not an attack page, not libel, not a legal threat. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you


Clearly an attack page. Even though it is funny, not everyone wants to read this. XfDWatcher (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know who or what this page is attacking, I personally do not see this attacking anyone or anything. If someone doesn't want to read the page, they don't have to. I don't believe any valid rationale to delete this page has been put forward. - GB fan 19:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Attack page with swearing language. --WikiHelper1 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's meant to be funny. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unfunny, inappropriate for certain readers, even if Wikipedia is not censored. It is violating WP:LIBEL and WP:LEGAL, especially WP:PROFANE. A humorous essay can't be this offensive. XfDWatcher (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck the delete, you only get to specifically say delete once and your nomination is the one. - GB fan 21:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is this libeling? What legal threats are being made by this essay? WP:PROFANE is a content guideline. This isn't encyclopedic content, it is a humorous essay. - GB fan 21:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence of an attack. If "not everyone wants to read this" were a valid rationale for deletion, no entry could survive a deletion nomination. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: I would consider it an attack essay, then. Could we make this a shock page? XfDWatcher (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Striking another duplicate vote. Primefac (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Who or what does it attack? - GB fan 22:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - not an attack page, and no valid reason to delete has been mentioned in the nomination or the discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 23:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how this is an WP:ATTACK, and "I Don't Like It" isnt a valid argument for deletion. Yilloslime T C  00:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appropriate, direct humour for an important issue, one which the target audience frequently has difficulty grasping in normal language.  Per the essay, WP:BLOCK XfDWatcher for five minutes for causing several people to unnecessarily read the page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - A widely linked (though that may be largely due to its inclusion in Wikipedia essays) and longstanding essay that is clearly marked as humor. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 10:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not only funny, but also a good critical piece about how the community often fails to deal with minor but persistent issues. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:53, 7 March 2017 (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.