Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikisuicide


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 16:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikisuicide
WP:POINT --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not too far from patent nonsense. Stifle 15:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:POINT, yet more of Zephram Stark's trolling. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. To Polonius, the term "Ophelia Syndrome" would sound like a parody, but that is only because he cannot see the problem from the eyes of an unbiased observer.  Ophelia commits suicide for the same reason that good editors are leaving and staying away from Wikipedia in droves.  We can examine the issues, or we can pretend that they do not exist, and consequently be just as confused as Polonius when the thing he loved so much that he tried to control it dies.  --Zephram Stark 18:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Zephram Stark trolling. --JW1805 20:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That makes two people who voted for deletion without reading the article. (Hint: you gave it away when you used the word "trolling")
 * JP, when using a term to accuse someone while not realizing that the term was made fun of in the very evidence cited for the accusation, thereby proving that the evidence was not read and the accusation was made under false pretenses, could that also be considered to be an example of irony? --Zephram Stark 21:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is ridiculous. I believe that if it were speedied, nobody would miss it. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If we can learn to empathize with those whom we call vandals and trouble-makers, we might just find that we have the same goal: to create great articles. I urge you to reconsider your vote and allow this article to become the bridge to bringing many of our brothers and sisters back home.  --Zephram Stark 00:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please look into the history of Wik, PelicanShit or WOW before you claim that vandals and trouble-makers have goals even remotely resembling our community goal. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you think their goals are? --Zephram Stark 00:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)  image:LaughterTears.gif unlinked
 * Dammit Jim, I'm an admin, not a psychiatrist. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete While this term is not unknown, it is not common; and this particular page is more an essay than a definition. Xoloz 01:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the best I could do on short notice, but I'm certainly open to help on a rewrite. Why not give it a whirl?  --Zephram Stark 02:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The article itself is an orphan. A search within Wikipedia turns up zero hits for use of the term.  That finding is a bit odd since it at least should have found the article and this discussion.  Maybe the search hasn't found it yet?  Regardless, I think that's compelling evidence that the term is not in any significant use yet.  As for the content itself, I've read it three times and can't figure out what the author is trying to say except that he/she doesn't like the way something (I'm not sure what) is done.  The whole page comes across as a rant.  If the author wants it on his/her userpage, move it there.  Otherwise, delete.  Rossami (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this pollution of the Wikispace. BD2412  T 14:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten it, but I doubt even such brilliant prose justifies the page Fred Bauder 15:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's more coherent now but it's still an orphan and still shows up blank on the internal google search. Finding no evidence that the term is in use, I still can't see a reason to keep a page which theoretically defines the term.  Despite Fred's rewrite, I'm afraid I can't change my opinion.  Rossami (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nobody uses this term, and, well, let's not encourage people. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:41, 12 November 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.