Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Follow all rules

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. Peter 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Follow all rules

Although kept as humorous, I find this essay unnecessary, particularly since if you search for WP:FOLLOW, this is the first hit you will get. Newcomers doing the same might see it as humorous, but equally, some may take it seriously. It's four years old now, and the advice it purports to impart is equally given in more obvious policy and guidelines. Rodhull andemu 02:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You worry too much. At worst, edit the shortcut to send "WP:FOLLOW" searchers somewhere better. But first, look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:FOLLOW to see the seriousness of the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How funny you find it, or how funny it is on the absolute metric, misses the point. These "humor" essays are not here to be funny, but for their educational merit, which this page has. Humor, including parody, absurdity, satire, ridicule (but not personal) should be seen as a collegial educational tool. This page illustrates the absurdity of taking the rules too seriously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not doing it too well, it would have to be vastly improved if it's kept. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 07:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with a thumb in the eye of bureaucracy everywhere. I'll expand at essay length if necessary, but rarely is a "keep" as obvious as this one. Antandrus (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sometimes I wouldn't mind seeing rules followed a bit more here. We do have policy for a reason. Plus, drama at ANI is always a good way to end the day, so any essay encouraging more of it is welcome, in my book. Buddy431 (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem with the essay is that some people would be totally perplexed and not know how interpret it. If the page is merely for humor, it is not effective (it's not at all funny except to the cognoscenti, and even then it's only mildly amusing). If the page aims to provide useful advice along with humor, it is again not effective because different readers would walk away with different views – essentially the reader has to already understand what WP:IAR is all about before successfully interpreting this page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Violates no rules. Collect (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous." If that's the only reason then it might as well go, as it's not funny in the least. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 13:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a sad day when we take it upon ourselves at MFD to be the funny police. I did find the essay somewhat humorous, though it is of course a bit unclear. And strictly speaking, it could be a serious essay urging people to follow the rules. God knows we have enough problems with wp:NPOV and wp:V here. Essays don't have to reflect consensus. Buddy431 (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Valid humor page. I sincerely doubt there's any danger of it being taken seriously, given that the tag at the top clearly explains otherwise.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The only reason why this is here is because it is funny, so it might as well be deleted. 68071 ^{talk something} —Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Now that's funny.--SPhilbrick T 16:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I fail to see where humor is listed as a CSD.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think they were trying to make the same point as I was above^, it's only kept because it's supposedly humorous but it's not really funny at all, so we're left with no reasons to keep it. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 07:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is funny, and even if you don't think so, it is adequately labeled.--SPhilbrick T 16:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unnecessary was never a rationale to delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page actually helps put WP:IAR in context by parodying it. It could be better (and link to IAR from the body of text rather than a see also section) but it is helpful, IMO. "Unnecessary"... in a sense, nothing on WP is "necessary" if you think about it, least of all the articles --Jubilee ♫clipman 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is already a banner denouncing it as a merely satirical page of Wikipedia. It has its educational merits in its over-the-top yet subtle sarcasm as well (see above comment). Oh, BTW it should be covered under the WP:DOF as well, so you might as well take a look at all the other humorous pages like WP:SARC, which had stood for three, going on four, years; WP:TROUT, for the same length of time; the stuff in Template:Wikipedia fauna; and Wikipedia:Don't be a dork, which had stood for two years. (I honestly don't think that they should be deleted either.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Wikipedia:Ignore common sense, Wikipedia:Random deletion and other humorantipolicies? :) --Jubilee ♫clipman 01:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and WP:TROUT-whack the next person who proposes a humour page for deletion. Whether or not you personally find them funny, these pages aren't hurting Wikipedia, and often serve to illustrate an important point in an ironic way. Robofish (talk) 00:47, 5 June 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.