Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No one cares

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 who cares...it's gone. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No one cares[edit]

Seems like an inflammatory version of Wikipedia:notability, a controversial topic at the best of times. Also, WP:HOLE strikes me as odd, but I won't nominate it just yet, as they both seem too similar - Jack (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - also an embarrassingly ill-written mess. Moreschi 20:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too incoherent to be a useful essay. Eluchil404 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People care, I care! Culv e rin ? ^Talk 06:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not just is it terribly written, but even if it was Pulitzer-worthy, it still would do absolutely nothing to benefit WP. -- Kicking222 07:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to imply that articles can be deleted to protect against people posting false information, too. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it were ever used as a reason for deletion (despite being an essay not a policy) it would probably offend the author. Something to the same effect, written better and kinder (like this sentence ;))could be useful however the various notability guidelines seem to do that just fine. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:No one cares --Phred Levi 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it's inaccurate. It's not about whether you care about it or even know anyone who cares about it--if anyone bothers creating reliable secondary sources about it, though, then it's legit. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly - this one belongs on Uncyclopedia. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
BJAODN? or maybe delete because everyone else seems to be calling for deletion. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yuser31415 02:43, 14 December 2006 (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.