Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme article deletion

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Extreme article deletion was proposed for extreme deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed extreme deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an extreme historic record. The result of the debate was to extreme keep. No points awarded. Cool Hand Luke 02:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • We need an edit war. Now.

Non-notable, original research, no potential to become encyclopedic, completely idiosyncratic non-topic, article gone awry. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep! It's not an article, it's in the Wikipedia namespace. — Kate Turner | Talk 08:06, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
  • Keep Not article, in Wikipedia namespace [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 08:10, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Utterly pointless, but valid. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:08, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't see a problem with the fact that it's not an article. We can and should list pages here which are in the Wikipedia namespace. Different standards apply, of course. That said, I think this page is better suited for meta. I won't vote, because I don't really care, though. anthony 警告 21:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unencyclopedic, too short, no significance, and non-notable. Four points! This article does not deserve the treatment it proposes for other articles. Let it suffer! Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 12:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Not useful. Move to meta.wikipedia, or perhaps to BJAODN. - Mike Rosoft 12:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If anyone wants to BJAODN it before that they're free to. --fvw* 13:13, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
  • Comment/Abstain. It's in the Wikipedia namespace alright, but is apparantly utter nonsense. Move to BJAODN? zoney ♣ talk 13:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There are additional points for original proposals or when the article, despite proof of encyclopedia suitability after being a week on VfD and having ample votes, is deleted. When an article is only changed into a redirect, there is ½ a point Hurts the encyclopedia, delete. Wyllium
    • Right, so this one went swoosh right over my head. All the more reason to delete it, I might not be the only one. Wyllium 19:16, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
  • How much do I get for a delete after a move to BJAODN? Fire Star 15:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is pretty acurate. Mark Richards 15:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the fine points were lost in translation, but the original german page is clearly satire and has a matching page of awarded points serving as a de:Pranger for wikipedians which are a bit to eager in nominating VfDs. --Pjacobi 15:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Even though it is in name space, there is no procedure for getting rid of the junk there. People are supposed to clean up their own messes and not create dead and joke pages. That said, people do. Some folks have sought to tidy up over there, and they've needed to use VfD for it. For my part, I don't think the thing is funny, but I'm sure it's divisive. Geogre 15:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to meta and delete. The Wikipedia namespace here should be free from satirical pages which new users may misunderstand. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
  • Delete. An attempt to subvert Wikipedia and the VfD process, and a not-so-sly personal attack on those of us who actually believe not everything should be kept. RickK 21:38, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but remove "enthusiasts" (or add more!) Possibly move to "Wikipedia:Most extreme article deletion challenge." Also open to transwiki to meta. Cool Hand Luke 21:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to meta. —No-One Jones (m) 21:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This deserves a link on the VfD page right along with "Please do not bite the newcomers", etc. --Idont Havaname 22:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Anything except keep. Hopefully inclusionists won't support keeping a troll page like this. -- WOT 23:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, satirical as it may be it makes a valid point on the current state of where we are now and where Wikipedia may be heading. And AFAIK this is out of bounds from VfD anyhow. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain Delete. Unencyclopedic. (1 point!) Too short. (1 point!) No significance. (1 point!) Non-notable. (1 point!) "Sport" with one listed practicioner. That "Additional points are awarded... when the article is deleted despite proof of encyclopedic suitability" is a literal encouragement to screw Wikipedia out of useful information. Inappropriate for meta. Could go to BJAODN or a user page, I suppose. Samaritan 23:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete extremely. And by that i mean keep —siroχo 00:26, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • I like the VfD header. Nice touch. Cool Hand Luke 01:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I figured it was appropriate (: —siroχo 06:55, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Unencyclopedic stub, non-notable, Wikifancruft. I win! Seriously, though: transwiki to meta and delete. But are other-namespace pages technically eligible for VfD? -Sean Curtin 00:46, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Meta TO THE EXTREEEEEEEEEME! Lord Bob 01:30, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep pretty funny, not in the main namespace, and there is other satire there. A good starting point for discussion. Intrigue 01:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep every Extreme article deletion needs to be hardened by Vfd, I think. -guety is talking english bad 01:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, funny as heck and in the wiki name space Florescentbulb 02:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with extreme prejudice: unencyclopedic, too short, no significance, and non-notable -- just right! the Epopt 02:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I'm worried that what is obviously a joke has been taken serious by at least a significant minority of people. The factionalism surrounding VfD disturbs me, and looks likely to become a bigger issue in the future (eg people are already voting for/against people in Request for adminship based on their perceived deletionism/inclusionism). As such, even though this is a mildly funny joke, I really don't think it helps much. Shane King 03:04, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete extremely, by which I mean keep. --bdesham 03:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    No-one is "disrupting Wikipedia". — Kate Turner | Talk 03:24, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
  • I don't care, but please do not move to Meta. If it needs to be anywhere, it should stay on the English Wikipedia since it relates specifically to en's VfD. Angela. 08:39, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge content into five other articles, three in the article namespace and two in the Wikipedia, convert to a disambig page, list all six subsequent articles at Vfd the following week, and eliminate all trace of their existence. Needless to say, the preceding vote is meant to amuse those who found the creation of this page funny. I would suggest moving this to either BJAODN (although honestly I hate putting pages there that were written with the express purpose of making that page) or user subpage. As it stands, it's too likely to confuse new users into thinking it's policy or endorsed perspective. Jwrosenzweig 15:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This is some sort of attempt to subvert the dominant paradigm and this sort of action should not be taken lightly. Therefore I am casting a strong vote to delete, and by that I mean keep. GRider 17:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is some sort of attempt to subvert deletion of good articles and should be encouraged. Intrigue 04:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • a) Name one good article that's ever had consensus for deletion. b) You liked the joke so much, you just had to vote twice? -Sean Curtin 05:43, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 04:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark Richards 20:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, people, uh...

Firstly, this is not a "personal attack", it's not trying to "subvert" anything, and it's certainly not "trolling". No-one is going to look at this page and then try to delete articles in order to earn points. It's humour. We are not going to destroy Wikipedia by having something non-serious in the project namespace, whether or not you personally find it amusing.

Yes, the original translation could use some work (I'm not very good at translation - sue me). If someone wants to improve it, feel free. I hardly think that's a reason to delete it. — Kate Turner | Talk 02:03, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC) (P.S. note that the "enthusiasts" added themselves).

Shhhh!!!! they don't need to know that! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Underplay it. This means bonus points, remember? Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, OK. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I certainly don't think this article will make people run around deleting things for fun and profit, I just think it's better on Meta. Lord Bob 02:26, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
I think the question is - what is the Wikipedia namespace for? Is it for operational clutter associated with Wikipedia en:, or are jokes and satire appropriate too? Personally, I think an attempt should be made to keep the Wikipedia namespace somewhat cleaner - perhaps individual users should host such joke/satire pages under a user subpage? (And yes, ultimately, I'm suggesting even BJAODN be moved to someones user space). However, I'm not changing my vote to a delete yet, as it seems people are dead set against such a move. I would like to elicit responses on the state of the Wikipedia namespace and whether the status quo is good enough? zoney ♣ talk 10:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Recommend postponement until someone can point to a consensus on guidelines for deleting pages in the [[:Wikipedia:]] namespace. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 20:28, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain This matter seems so convoluted that voting either way could result in something contrary to what I intend. Eclecticology 00:34, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Looks like a troll to me http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/11/17/64312/214

Hey. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Nominate for FAC. I think it's grand. Fishal 02:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Non-notable, original research, no potential to become encyclopedic" — none of those are valid reasons for deleting something in the [[:Wikipedia:]] namespace. Nobody has yet given a reason for deleting it that seems reasonable to me, and I haven't seen anything wrong with the article. Factitious 04:21, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Extreme Keep Wifki 14:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Edit war it, then Protect it, then make it the basis of an RfC and Mediation. Jayjg 17:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Meta or BJAODN. cesarb 22:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yo, dude, extreme, like, keep, man. Andre (talk) 23:28, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Extreme_article_deletion&oldid=1137838738"