Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of all lists that do not contain themselves

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 debate was delete. — TKD::Talk 12:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of all lists that do not contain themselves

Delete - Presumably this is an inside joke for those familiar with Russell's paradox, but it has no incoming links and it seems to have absolutely no purpose being in this namespace. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Humor for humor's sake doesn't belong in the mainspace. Especially when it's bad humor for humor's sake. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'm sure I've seen this before. I don't have a stance on deletion or keeping either way, but I think this page was made to make fun of listcruft.--WaltCip 14:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Humor does not belong on wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia.--SJP 14:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't think this list is necessary, I don't think a little humour will ever do us any harm :) Qst 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia. Its okay to joke around, but setting up a page of humor is crossing the line. Thats just my POV.--SJP 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Nothing that has a vast amount of information in and is humourus for the sake of being amusing, shouldn't be kept, unless in exceptional circumstances. Rudget _zŋ 16:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - The nominator's comments are that it is pure humor related to Russell's paradox; however, it actually appears to be a good example of Russell's paradox and may have been intended that way. If so, it may have some, as yet incompletely formed, value. The creator is still an active editor; deletion is unnecessary, just userfy to User:Alterego/List of all lists that do not contain themselves.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Page does not improve the encyclopedia. Nobody of consequence 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero relevance to Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is incomplete or contains one object too many. Charon X/talk 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's supposed to be funny, it isn't. If it's supposed to be useful, it isn't. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shalom stole the words out of my mouth, but delete for those reasons plus incoherency. I don't really get it either. O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:11, 16 November 2007 (GMT)
- What is there to "get"? It is a Russell's paradox, if the list of lists doesn't contain itself then it qualifies and therefore it contains itself and therefore it doesn't qualify. If the list doesn't qualify to be on its own list then it can't be what it by definition is. I think I've got that sort of right, I'm no expert in such things. It is to some extent "nonsense" but it's intentionally so, it's a logical paradox. It is not incoherent, just hard to follow. ;)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inappropriate joke. Doczilla 08:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Russell's paradox actually includes an example with exactly this name, but it isn't wikilinked.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for one of the following reasons. (Although it does demonstrate that MediaWiki solves Russel's paradox in an interesting way. If we define the content of a list on MediaWiki as everything that is ~~listed~~ linked from it, then according to the list source code it contains itself. But not according to the rendered page.)

1. Failure to get the joke right. Most lists on Wikipedia do not contain themselves; they should all be on this one.

2. If the list is meant to be completed by inclusion of all other Wikipedia lists that do not contain themselves, it is likely to run into server limitations. This is not reasonable for such a joke. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:41/23:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I still see no reason not to userfy but I don't have strong objection to deleting, since there's not much on the page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 17 November 2007 (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.