Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (3rd 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 :

Delete Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (3rd nomination) — xaosflux ^Talk 01:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC);[reply]

No consensus' for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (2nd nomination) — xaosflux ^Talk 01:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (3rd nomination)[edit]

April Fool's Day is no reason to be disruptive. While a tag was added that the material is kept because it is considered humorous, I do not find the humor and only see a bad faith nomination. There is no value to Wikipedia to keeping Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (3rd nomination) or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (2nd nomination). Paul McDonald (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Usually I'd say these should be kept but both of these are A. unfunny and B. pointless! (To copy one long rationale to the other is nonsensical to say the least!) .... Nothing of value will be lost!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criteria G3 - it's obvious vandalism. Eye snore (pc) 12:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How come the AFD for the 2012 AFD discussion redirects here? Maybe we could keep the 2012 AFD but not the 2014 one? There are more comments on the 2012 one, so it has more humorous value. Besides, I suppose they are pretty similar. Also, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia policy prohibits having two AFDs in one like this. Smartyllama (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response that was my (poor) attempt to bundle two nominations. It's fairly standard at AFD. If they should be broken apart here, that's a mere technical move.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, some of the arguments above seem to only apply to the 2014 nomination (such as Davey's comments about copying the 2012 nomination) while other comments (such as yours) would apply to both, so maybe it's best to split them up. Smartyllama (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2014 (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.