Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Please be a giant duck, so we can ban you

 __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  userfy -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Please be a giant duck, so we can ban you


This is a pointless page with large pictures of ducks; "giant ducks are unable to type correctly (their bills are too big to hunt and peck yes we said bills) so for the good of the encyclopaedia giant ducks are to be banned upon confirmation they are Malludus giganticus." - What? This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of silly jokes.  Rcsprinter  (talk)  20:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, there is a well-established collection of silly jokes on Wikipedia. Dynamic&#124;cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 00:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete—completely meaningless. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannary parliament  ─╢ 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: FWIW, this is a reference to WP:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, a humorous article. I have added a hatnote.  Does that help? &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 20:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia does contain some material (not in mainspace) that is kept because it is humourous. The article in question is tagged to reflect this. People frequently feel that WP:HUMOR pages are "pointless" and say "this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of silly jokes" but that in itself is not a sound reason for deletion. Having said that, I don't think this should stay... It's obviously a reference to WP:DUCK and presumably is intended to lampoon sockpuppeteers. However it clearly doesn't do a good enough job as I'm forced to make guesses as to what the humourous point is supposed to be. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 20:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to allowing a User: space copy if the author wants to keep it there instead. It's harmless enough as a userspace page but has absolutely nothing to do with encyclopedia editing notwithstanding the link to WP:QUACK, and as such doesn't really belong in the Wikipedia: space. 28bytes (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment as per 28bytes let it live in the userspace; if the author does not want it I will take it. JORGENEV  21:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to userspace, this has the potential to be funny (with the idea of WP:GIANTDICK, but relating to WP:DUCK) but as it currently is I don't think it should be in the Wikipedia namespace. Dynamic&#124;cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 00:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to move to userspace, this doesn't need deleting. Dynamic&#124;cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 03:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to userspace per 28bytes. Not contributing anything to Wikipedia space now. -- Klein zach  00:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy Unlike WP:GIANTDICK, which has some longterm acceptance in the community, this page shows little of that. It's a fine essay, but would be better served as a userspace essay until such time as it gains a similar level of acceptance.  -- Jayron  32  03:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy without prejudice Bulwersator (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy - kind of a "me too" humor piece, attempting to apply the same spin as WP:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, but based on WP:QUACK. Unfortunately, I don't really see it as having the same impact, and comes across as somewhat redundant to QUACK.  It might develop later into something fuller, but for now, just userfy the page - it's harmless enough for that placement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy, but don't delete. Nothing wrong with a little silly humour. Made me laugh, and with the crap that Wikipedia can be, a little laughing can be really valuable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Le sigh. Humorous riffs on well-established essays are still welcome here. If it must be userfied then so be it, but for chrissake we've got bigger problems than this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What bigger problems are those?  Rcsprinter  (talk)  15:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Vandals, socks of banned users, nationalist POV pushers, fringe theory POV pushers, I could go on, but those are some of the main ones. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Couldn't care less I have no intention of doing anything on wikipedia other than random gnomic edits. Egg Centric 14:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy or Keep. Otherwise there is no point in having the template that clearly says that it is kept because it is considered humorous. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 02:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. We should have a policy on the widespread waste of electrons. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we already do. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 06:58, 26 September 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.