Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Votes for extreme deletion

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Votes for extreme deletion[edit]

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 Deleted, but VFD never closed. Titoxd 20:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, listing this in VfD probably makes me a canditate for the title of most extreme deletionist in Wikipedia, but here goes: not notable, original research, no potential to become encyclopedic, completely idiosyncratic non-topic, article gone awry, attempt to subvert deletion process and policy, hoax/prank/joke, self-contradictory nonsense presented as a Wikipedia maintenance page, wikifancruft, secret inclusionist plot for generating more BJAOEDN material (E here stands for extreme, of course). jni 16:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, or transwiki to meta. This page is funny. No other reasons required. Don't delete it! --18:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Unsigned vote - doesn't count.
      • That was my vote. Keep it. Actually, give this its own entry in BJAODN. --Idont Havaname 03:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Those 'contributors' who keep whining to us over and over again that the deletion policy is broken, and keep offering as evidence cases where it is misapplied by people who don't understand the deletion policy the way they think they do, should not be making the process even more complicated with mockery like this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete extremely. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. That page is a childish attempt of "revenge" for having one of their other pages listed on VFD, and is trying to polarise the Wikipedia community. The last thing we need here is an us-them devision between "deletionists" and "non-deletionists", whatever those mean. Wyllium 20:58, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
    • That's something you'd know nothing about, right Wyllium? Hah. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • That's "inclusionists". -- Cyrius|✎ 23:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Wyllium, see meta:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and meta:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. The "Inclusionists" and "Deletionists" have already coalesced into formal, organized, partisan factions. Isn't that Wikilovely? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I find it rather depressing, actually. You'd think an encyclopedia would attract mature people. Wyllium 02:44, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
        • See my meta user page. The "deletionist" thing came about originally as a joke. The people who kept getting called "deletionists" jokingly put up a page. When a certain administrator was shown to be removing VfD losers from VfD and reinstating the articles on schools, someone (not on that page) put up a monitor to watch the school votes. Well, that prompted all the "hit lists." I have yet to see anyone from that "Deletionist" page show up and rake VfD with "delete" votes. I wish I could say the same about the second, later page. Geogre 03:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete (or move to meta). It would be nice if more of the people who complain about the deletion policy being broken would offer alternatives or try to help fix things instead of making petty, divisive crap like this. -Sean Curtin 23:18, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've given suggestions, Sean, but they've been howled down. One, write to the editor of a page you feel should be deleted to discuss it with them before listing. There should be no extreme urgency involved. Two, do not troll the other side by a/ repeatedly listing pages you have previously failed to have deleted b/ listing articles you know will not be deleted in a million years but you think there's a point to be made c/ listing articles without even bothering to google them/do any research but simply going by what you know or don't know or d/ listing schools until the issue has been resolved by consensus, if it can be. Three, how about slightly broadening the speedy criteria but having a temporary space to keep all speedies in, so that they can be scrutinised by interested parties and appealed on VfU?

As for this page, it could have been moved to meta without a vote. Be bold. Listing it here just perpetuates this particular conflict.Dr Zen 01:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • I for one wouldn't mind it being moved to meta, but now that it's here it's best to let the VfD process conclude. -Sean Curtin 03:19, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN. I don't think this is a BJAODN attempt, if I did I wouldn't suggest it. Nor do I think there's anything in it to keep or transwiki. But let's all keep our senses of humour. As for improving VfD, I've tried too! I think I understand everyone's frustration. Andrewa 01:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Radman1 taunting and Anthony joining in. Tell me, please, how this kind of thing leads in any way to a spirit of community. Tell me how it does anything but undermine any suspicion of good faith by its authors. Disagree, folks, but don't be petulant. Geogre 03:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep, of course. I can't believe I'm even reading this. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Mmm. Keep. Cool Hand Luke 06:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not what I look for in an encyclopaedia article. Fire Star 06:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stuff in the Wikipedia: namespace isn't meant to be encyclopaedic. However, it is meant to be infrastructure and guidance for the creation of an encyclopaedia. This isn't. BJAODN if you must. --fvw*† 07:28, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
  • Delete. Leads to factionalism. RickK 07:33, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • More like "spawned from" than "leads to". -Sean Curtin 00:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trolling, no legitimate uses. —Triskaideka 16:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whatever the intention, this is effectively trolling and an illegitimate use of the Wikipedia namespace. It would be okay, albeit poor judgement, to host this on a user page. -- WOT 18:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Intrigue 21:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Joke's over. Now delete. Rossami (talk) 02:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Extremely neutral and unlikely to form an opinion. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, Nov 30, 2004 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Votes_for_extreme_deletion&oldid=1138702709"