Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Primogeniture

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. Xoloz 15:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Primogeniture

Request deletion as creator and primary writer. This allegedly humorous piece has served its purpose (venting) and is a bit too sardonic to be good for 'pedia. Herostratus 08:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Herostratus 08:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Shame on you! This is humor. Keep. Anomo 11:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as BJAODN. And thanks for the info. I guess I can change my signature now. Gus the Flatulent, Third Admin of Badbilltucker 16:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the first rule about the Cabal is that you don't talk about the Cabal. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, its funny! — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 20:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• DelKeep I'd vote to delete, but the Cabal actived my mind-control implant and convinced me to vote otherwise. There is no Cabal. All hail the Cabal. CharonX/talk 22:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Am I missing something here or does it look like you aren't the original creator of this?? Stubbleboy 01:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Striking through my "shame on you" because I had thought a different person made the article. Anomo 02:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, since the original author wants it gone. I am the uploader of the "official cabal decree" logo, but had nothing to do with this essay. As far as I can tell it's humorous and harmless (possibly even helpful in some ways) but this is a {{db-author}} job, really; if the author of an essay in project space says it's done with, I see no compelling reason to stand in the way. Guy 17:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or at least move to BJAODN, if there is no way to keep it. We may not be Uncyclopedia, but good humor in the Wikipedia namespace is always pleasant to come across. Captainktainer * Talk 18:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment db-author only applies to pages created by mistake; even if the author no longer wants it, it seems that other people do, so it should still be kept. --ais523 09:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Freakofnurture couldn't get rid of his Gnaa, Nigeria article. Anomo 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and tag it as official policy :-) Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I second that it should be official policy. Anomo 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It seems to be developing without Herostratus, so it has been accepted by the community. Septentrionalis (lowly serf) 05:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep So what if it's {{db-author}}. The cabal says to ignore all rules! -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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.