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 speedy delete . The "barnstar spelling hints" at the end make it unambiguously an attack page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rather straightforward violation of WP:POINT, the page is a sarcastic attack on what the author perceives as unreasonable civility demands by Wikipedia's editors. The author, User:HarryAlffa, stated in the page's first edit summary that the page is "not primarily humour in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit." He has recently been attempting to backpedal on that initial stance by saying the page is a "a serious attempt to curb the over-enthusiastic use of WP:PA & WP:AGF". Past comments and a review of the content of the page will show that this is anything but a serious attempt at anything. Requests to userfy and attempts to mark the page as humor have been met with resistance from the author. Equazcion (talk) 20:54, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion poisons the well with this. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I might have not really cared if the user had simply left this as a "rant" in his userspace, but moving it into WP space and advertising it as a serious policy proposal at the VP crosses the line into a disruptive WP:POINT as mentioned by the nominator. Shereth 20:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Arraign on WP:POINT charges, er, I mean Delete. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:POINT per above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per all above, and a failed attempt at communication with the author at the talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: agree with Shereth that this is a violation of WP:POINT, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This very discussion reveals the burning need for a gendarmerie to frown severely at miscreants who persist in making Wikipedia so unpleasant through their incessant and highly uncivil oppositionalism! CARE BEARS -- STAAAAAARE! SmashTheState (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – a blatant attempt to jerk others' chains; we're not here for that. I also oppose any userfication as it would do the same thing regardless of which space it is in. MuZemike 22:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Equazcion et al, and request for SmashTheState's post to be translated into English for me, I'm sure he/she has a good point and I'd like to be able to understand it and see if it changes my mind on this issue. I do however agree that too many people out there are worried about "civility" instead of just shrugging it off and ignoring it.Camelbinky (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a point issue. I might be okay with this in userspace, but it really doesn't belong in WP space. Delete as an example of climbing the reichstag. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a little bewildered. It is humour or trying to say something serious through humour? Or indeed, humor? In any case I don't think it's having the effect intended. Suggested action: Squash, as politely as possible, per ignorable cross-wikism UN:HTBFANJS. • Anakin ^(talk) 23:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy And it's not all that funny (or Funny). -- llywrch (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has had enough time, and can now be evaluated as totally unhelpful. If it contained any humor or insight, it might be suitable for userfication, but as it does not, the page should be on a personal website, not Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete On point and climb grounds. We could probably close this now, also.--Adam in MO Talk 00:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.