Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The first law of Wikipedia

 __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 all (without prejudice). , if you want these pages userfied, I'll be happy to oblige. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The first law of Wikipedia


Nominating as a group: and as separate case: Userfy. Basically, of insufficient quality for mainspace. The first two are underdeveloped while the third is just a short restatement of Get to Philosophy which the author probably didn't realize already exists.
 * The first law of Wikipedia
 * The second law of Wikipedia
 * The third law of Wikipedia

Regarding the first two -- to the extent that they're not marked as "humor", they're too alienated. They might just as well say "Wikipedia sucks" and we don't need to host stuff that negative in our own mainspace, let Wikipedia Review or whomever host material like that. This isn't to say there's no grain of truth there, but so what? There is no developed thesis here, and no solution offered. It is a counsel of despair.

They could be marked as "humor" but the problem with that is they're not funny, or anyway not developed enough as humorous pieces to be in mainspace. At any rate, they should certainly not bear the names "First Law" and so forth as they are merely random observations and not guiding principles. So if not userfied, at any rate mark as "humor" and rename, although again, we have to some reasonable quality standards for mainspace entities, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: Are there any other 'laws' of Wikipedia written up anywhere? -- Klein zach  02:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, see User:Raul654/Raul's laws, and a more serious take on a similar subject at User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. Graham 87 03:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy per nom. Graham 87 03:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete titles, move contents to another page if desired. These aren't laws in either the legal or the scientific senses. The titles are misleading.   Will Beback    talk    03:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge onto The laws of Wikipedia—rather laboured satire which doesn't seem terribly useful. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannary parliament  ─╢ 21:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy per nom or Delete. -- Klein zach  00:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy per nom. The presence of such pages in project space suggests that they are endorsed by the community. bd2412  T 03:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with that last sentence at all. Perhaps truly unpopular theses with essentially no support shouldn't be in mainspace is as far as I'd go. I'm making more of a quality argument. Herostratus (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that these are just griping and not useful, happy to see them binned. Could redirect the first law to Ignore all rules? Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See also The first rule of Wikipedia (actually humour). Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all I agree with the nominator that these undeveloped, alienating pieces do not belong in Wikipedia space. Because the creator has not supported userfying, my position is "delete". If the creator wants to retain the pages, I am not opposed to userfication. Cunard (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, along with The fist law of Wikipedia and The souce law of Wikipedia, the original locations for one and two. Badmachine (talk) 05:34, 2 June 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.