Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (2nd nomination)

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 keep. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions[edit]

It's non-notable, unencyclopedic, too weird to have an article, fails WP:V, and has no assertion of notability. Please please please delete this, I beg! I hate it! It's so boring. It's too funny to be encyclopedic. Information on this article helps Iran to plan attacks. It's rubbish. Article has been here 2 years and is still blabblish. It is an orphan. It is out of date due to its references to Utopistan, a 13-th century country. It will be vandalized a lot. It's just a made up policy. Zero google hits other than this article, so it must be a hoax. Article must stand the test of time. Wikipedia does not need policy pages. 10000 vandals want this page deleted. Only editors have contributed to this article. Article has so little information, it is useless. Unreliable sources. Only is relevant to Wikipedia lalaness. Wikipedia is not news, and neither is this. So they should both be deleted. Nobody who doesn't live on Wikipedia cares about this. A website with millions of edits is not notable. I've never heard of it so it must be a hoax. Wikipedia is just a flash in the pan, therefore policies are non-notable. No interwiki. We do not have an article Wikipedia:Arguments to Use in Deletion Debates, therefore we should not have an article on this. We would delete Wikipedia:Tacos to Avoid in Deletion Debates or Wikipedia:Hand Grenades to Avoid in Deletion Debates, therefore this must go as well. This info is available elsewhere. It's only a guideline or essay. Creator is an idiot. Smartyllama (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Blatant brainless balderdash. Does not exactly fall into the harmless nonsense class, as it could harm the morals and characters of minors, on the odd chance that any of them would read it, it being sneakily tucked away in "non-article space" like a ticking-time bomb. While I normally agree with WP:NOTCENSORED, this is one case where I think the article should be purged from every server on the face of the earth (and beyond), and the creator should be spanked, tarred, feathered and castrated to prevent contamination of our precious gene pool. Stuff like this puts me off my food. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Because I said so. Sincerely User:Fake Editor Who is Using Fake Names to Further Deletion Discussion
Speedy Delete: per User:Fake Editor Who is Using Fake Names to Further Deletion Discussion Smartyllama (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep it's an essay, so does not need to pass a notability test like any other essay. "We do not have an article Wikipedia:Arguments to Use in Deletion Debates, therefore we should not have an article on this" is not a reason for deletion. Any notability guideline is essentially containing arguments for keep. this essay contains the most common weak keep or delete arguments and provides guidance especially fir new users.LibStar (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:IAR says we can ignore those rules and delete it anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But WP:IAR says we can ignore the rule that says to ignore all rules, and therefore we should keep it. Sincerely, User:Troll for deletion discussions 1
  - Keep per above User:Troll for deletion discussions 2
  - Keep per above User:Troll for deletion discussions 3
  - Keep per above and sock-puppets are permissible per WP:IAR allowing us to bypass the no-sockpuppets rule. Sincerely, User:Troll for deletion discussions 4
Keep. When I was a new user I found it helpful. It remains a useful, and entertaining, guide to new editors, who often need every bit of help they can get. (Is this nomination someone's idea of an April Fool's Day joke?) BlackCab (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/comment: Yes. Smartyllama (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Double Speedy Delete with extra SALT: To make up for the two vandals who contaminated this AfD with their inane Keep votes. So what if I !voted already. I'm obviously three times smarter and more important than the average WP editor, at least, per WP:BRAINZ and WP:BIGMEMBER. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. It's interesting, it's an essay, and most of all, I like it. I must have a weird sense of humor since I actually laugh when reading this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TDLI --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BRAINZ and WP:NOTACOSINDELETIONDISCUSSIONS Smartyllama (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and lock down Wikipedia on 1 April every year. These joke nominations are not funny and are borderline vandalism. Rossami (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This nomination appears to be an April Fools joke. It was written like it is pushing for the deletion of an article, not a project page. Such an act is disruptive. After the nomination was made, someone else then came along and supported it. No good points were made that really support deleting this essay. If someone really wants this essay deleted, this discussion should be closed, and a new one opened. Sebwite (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Pzoxicuvybtnrm's statement. — P C B 15:16, 1 April 2012 (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.