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 Keep as it is clearly labelled as humourous. You may find it so, you may not - but either way, the concensus is to keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page is totally against all wikipedia policy, including encouraging vandalism and edit warring (where it says;" vandalise the persons talk page" and "Get real mad and revert any good faith edits that editor has made"). While I understand this page is intended as humor, I do not feel we should have a page consisting of humor that encourages this sort of behavior.Immunize (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as appropriately tagged {{humour}}. –xeno^talk 15:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This argument would be applicable in some other situations, but I feel it does not matter when the humor encourages vandalism, which this article indisputably does. Immunize (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Many pages in Category:Wikipedia humor encourage people to do stupid things - part of the reason they they are considered and tagged as humourous... –xeno^talk 17:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the page is ironic. I have removed the section that you object to. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That section (what to do if someone fails to bite you) was a major part of my reasoning behind the nomination, but I still do not feel it is useful, and thus do not intend to close the discussion, though I feel your edit improved the page. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The notice at the top of the page is sufficient to prevent people from using this page as advice on the treatment of newbies: This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose, and may even result in a block if its advice is followed. This page is not against policy, as the nom suggests: it's satire. PDCook (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  fwiw, that second sentence wasn't there when the nominator initiated this. –xeno^talk 18:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it was not, and if it was, I most likely would not have nominated the page. However, the statement brings to mind the question of what the value of a page that should not be used "for any remotely serious purpose" is. Immunize (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The lulz? –xeno^talk 20:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I cannot understand what you mean? Immunize (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Chill out and Keep. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 20:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not opposed to humor, but this page lacks one of the critical elements of a humor page - it's not funny. --SPhilbrickT 21:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it's a parody. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I could really go for a userfication if necessary. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is the last thing newcomers need.Nilotpal42 (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. It makes Wikipedia appear unfriendly to newcomers, even if tagged {{humor}}. Immunize (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Tagged as humour, no valid reason given to delete. Possibly hurt feelings because someone reads the entire page and somehow misses the humor tag is not a valid reason. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. Wikipedia is supposed to be friendly to newcomers, and this page is basically a malicious humor. Newcomers will feel as though more experienced editors are "making fun of" them with this page. Immunize (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I know you disagree, as stated above. You really don't need to respond to everyone's posting. And no, it actually isn't making fun of new editors, as they are not the audience for such a page and are quite unlikely to find it until they've been around for a bit. What it is targeting is the long-time editors themselves, ridiculing their tendency to be very short and condescending in response to the mistakes of new editors. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as I disagree with all forms of ironic humor. Wikipedia is far too serious business for such tomfoolery. I would be deeply saddened to see us degrade into a site that accepts humor - what's next, we turn into 4chan? Just preposterous, the idea of keeping this page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia iz serius bizness, after all. --Carnildo (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This page should be the least of newcomers worries. —Mike Allen 10:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There's nothing wrong with a little harmless satire. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satire works. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SmokeyJoe. I can only imagine how some people will react to this year's April Fools antics (which ironically is about three weeks away). –MuZemike 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep mostly per Tarc. There's absolutely nothing wrong with satire, so long as there is an understanding beforehand that the page is intended to be humourous. (One wishes Sarah Palin felt the same way about Family Guy.) There almost needs to be a lighter side of Wikipedia. You can't predict how other people will feel about this page. "They might feel offended" is never a valid reason for deletion, in much the same way "It might be vandalized" is never a valid reason for protection. Xenon54 / talk / 02:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Oh come on! The page says it is meant to be humourous and is not to be taken seriously. If anyone does take it seriously, obviously seriously makes people question their reasoning. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have also nominated the page Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them for similar reasons. Immunize (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That snow closed yesterday. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2010 (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.