Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of hidden agendas

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 Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of hidden agendas

Delete essentially a joke page on Wikipedia space. Don't see any useful purpose, if the user wants to keep it he can request it moved to his userspace. Jersey Devil 02:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails this guideline. >Radiant< 08:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but did you just cite Uncyclopedia as a guideline? Jouster (whisper) 14:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "How to be funny and not just stupid" is a guideline useful in life, as well. Sean William @ 20:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly ancient in-jokes and references to old conflicts - no constructive purpose in building the encyclopedia. Walton^One 12:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not fundamentally different from WP:LEW. Jouster (whisper) 14:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't deny that there are legitimate uses for Wikipedia humour, but I can't see any value whatsoever to this page. Walton^One 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, even OSE recognizes that it's not quite so applicable when the "OS" in question has survived an AfD. LAME has survived, what, six now?
  - At any rate, one of the best arguments against things like this is to point to the many examples where our supposed systemic biases directly contradict one another. If everything we do is both opposed in equally-strident tones by extremists on all sides of an issue, that is an excellent indication that we are keeping to WP:NPOV, no? The page is intended as humor, and marked as such, but it also serves a deeper purpose, in my mind, much as WP:LAME helps to remind us not to be DICKs. Jouster (whisper) 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should we be endeavouring to defend ourselves against criticism by Conservapedia and others? Or should we be listening to that criticism and acknowledging when they have a point? Dismissing people as "extremists" and mocking their criticisms of Wikipedia is by definition a POV standpoint. And no, being "opposed in equally-strident tones by extremists on all sides" is not a sign of NPOV; it is possible to have a centrist or moderate POV, disguised as NPOV. Walton^One 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But add to humor section Nathanww 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Charlie. AFD is not a vote. You must provide a basis for your action.--WaltCip 20:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's a [[WP:]] link for it somewhere, but please don't use patronizing names for your fellow contributors. Jouster (whisper) 22:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Both sides have good arguments, but I think this page is a bit more inflammatory than WP:LAME. —« ANIMUM » 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Both sides have good arguments, but I'm going to go with Magnus animum on this one. Kinda redundant per WP:LEW. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Funny... but contributes nothing to Wikipedia. hmwith talk 23:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Joke page on WP space. I fail to see the need for this page. --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or delete all other humour pages. ~ Wikihermit 20:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, two in one: WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ALLORNOTHING.--WaltCip 20:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody's really citing policies here. There's a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but that's about it. As far as I can see, it is not fundamentally different from WP:LAME is any way, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS clearly makes an exception for articles that have been through AfD's, let alone multiple AfD's, as LAME has. Were I the administrator closing this debate, I'd mark it as no consensus. Also, please be civil to your fellow editor; that statement came off as rather harsh, which you may not have intended. Jouster (whisper) 22:23, 21 July 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.