Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Assume bad faith

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 keep --Ichiro 06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume bad faith

Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assume bad faith. No vote. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 10:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless page that doesn't belong in the Wikipedia namespace, nor on Wikipedia at all. - Andrew Northall 09:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article has been around for several months, all the while pointing out that it is intended as humor and is supposed to be the OPPOSITE way in which Wikipedians should think. It is, admittedly, a very weak candidate for the Wikipedia namespace, and I do not throw my full support behind it, though I think it is a fun little Wikipedian Easter Egg. --Frag 09:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: This nomination shouldn't be here - please take it to WP:MFD Grutness...wha? 09:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is properly marked as a humor page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and list as BJAODN. If we were to have a parody for this guidline, then what'll stop us from parodying every other policy and guideline? Seems Uncyclopediac to me. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 10:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they are written as accurate reflections of community consensus, as this page is, I don't think that would be such a bad idea. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 10:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, categorized as a joke. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 10:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carbonite's law [1]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:24, Dec. 29, 2005
Keep as nice sarcasm. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - c'mon guys! It's funny! laugh :) Ta bu shi da yu 11:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a clear joke ... I see no reason this cant stay. ALKIVAR™ 11:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, decent enough and funny page, linked from meta. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; don't take ourselves too seriously. *Dan T.* 13:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good satire of WP:AGF, it would a pity to lose it. --cesarb 14:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it's well-justified humor, it's in the Wikipedia: namespace, and labelled as such. -- The Anome 14:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frankly, the picture sealed my vote. :) Monkey... hehehe. Xoloz 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's marked as humor and is a decent parody. --Thephotoman 18:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm assuming this is a bad faith nomination. R adiant _>|< 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. Very funny, though I see no real need for it. Keeping it would mean that we have nonsense where it's not supposed to be. Losing it would indeed by a waste. Therefore, BJAODN is the golden mean. -- Soothing R 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but definitely BJAODN. Keeping it could potentially confuse some users who aren't strong on Wiki policy, even if it is labelled as humour (never underestimate editor stupidity :). Grutness...wha? 23:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It's mildly amusing and marked as such. No problem that I can see. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 00:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. Triona 00:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does a good job in showing editors how trivial edit wars and ad hominem attacks are, and the necessary disclaimer is there. --Idont Havaname 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN as a self described joke page, it shouldn't be in the main section. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its funny! - iGod 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Tantalum T e lluride 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, marked as humour.--Sean|Bla ck 00:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kelly Martin (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, what's the harm? It's clearly marked as not policy. Keep and maybe move to meta. Raul654 09:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. totally keep; this hatuff has to be out in the open otherwise we're all taking ourselves way too seriously. --Marvin147 10:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and BJAODN, there were some precedents of content that was not deleted appearing on BJAODN. - Sikon 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, funny joke. Neutrality^talk 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, humorous and useful. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:49, 5 January 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.