Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stephen Colbert's Neologisms Lack Truthiness

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. Okay, I guess no one saw potential in this thing except PHDrillSergeant and me. Apologies to El C. Xoloz 16:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reopened this debate -- just because Mr. Colbert is American, it doesn't mean that a "humor policy" page devoted to him is insane. I'm not saying I like the page, but I am saying that it deserves discussing per the precedent of WP:SPIDER. Xoloz 17:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I take exception to that insinuation. I did not know it was an American, nor did I consider it humor when I speedy deleted it. El_C 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I retract the strength of my objection (I see it's directed toward the nomination note); nonetheless, I read it and it seemed like nonesense. Undoing another admin's action without discussion is to be avoided. Thanks. El_C 19:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Apperently, my speedy deletion was undone in the interest of humor; and while I don't quite get it, I am removing my objections. El_C 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Stephen Colbert's Neologisms Lack Truthiness

It is bad enough having cruft in the article space, let's not have it in the project space too. This essay isn't useful for teaching folk about wikipedia, since we have WP:NEO already. Indeed, better that people refer to a guideline which is not so specific in geography and culture as this. Speaking as a non-merican, my first reaction is who is colbert? Delete as cruft. --Doc 22:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This isn't Uncyclopedia.--JW1805 (Talk) 22:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and create new policy against American editors attempting to handle irony without proper supervision. My finger was hovering over the 'rouge admin vandal delete' button for being an essay encouraging vandalism, but it's just too obvious to be taken seriously - which is the same reason it's too unfunny to be humourous enough to be worth keeping. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for two reasons: the Colbert crap we see so often deserved something more specific than just WP:NEO. I didn't realize someone had reversed all of the worda and made it anti-vandalism. That kind of defeated the purpose. Also, keep per WP:SPIDER. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 23:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, now it's been changed to tell people that Colbert neologisms do not actually deserve their own article. Why is this necessary? As Doc says, who is this guy? I'm sure he seems tremendously significant to his audience - but even if every single American watched his show, that would only be a miniscule 4.5% of Wikipedia's audience (300 million into 6.5 billion, thank you Windows Calculator). I've seen no reason to believe that WP:NEO does not adequately cover why Colbert's neologisms do not merit articles. I'm still tempted to press the rouge delete button as part of the glorious wave of denying recognition to vandals, and I'm certainly still supporting deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless. Bastique▼^parler _voir 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Why are we wasting time discussing this arrant nonsense? Speedy it. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've already speedied it once, but Xolox overturned it. El_C 19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. A template might be in order, not a whole page of 'policy'. DJ Clayworth 19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NEO covers everything important within this policy. Dare I call this anti-vandal-cruft? :P Srose (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The person who vandalised the article, mister Hemophiliac, was me. I came to this page and found unfunny and whiny guideline cruft. So I started to fix it. But, it's been reverted to unfunny and whiny guideline cruft. So be it. However, permit me to set the record straight on two points:
  1. The problem is not that I am an American who can't handle irony. I deny both charges. The problem here is that
     • I was just starting, damnit, and
     • I was unable to convince the others to deadpan. See the talk page.
  2. WP:DENY is being applied backwards here. I put it to you that "I've reverted your crap, and by the way, no, it's not because I didn't get the 'joke'." might actually be more effective than the "we've reverted your crap, stop vandalising Wikipedia, or else" templates. My own experience suggests this. But, perhaps a template would be better for that, as suggested by DJ Clayworth. 192.75.48.150 20:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:ENC, and then consider a transfer to Uncyclopedia thanks. --Doc 21:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this is absurd.--SB | T 22:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I was about to nominate this. Especially egregious is the (serious?) citation of this policy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on The Colbert Report. Oh, and delete because it's absurd and because I don't see why colbert deserves his own policy (and if he did the policy should say "don't make articles about anything he says" with an excepion for Truthiness). I almost, IAR'd it to BJAODN, but it really isn't funny. BrokenSegue 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Waste of time. This is not the place. --Improv 05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Invoking WP:ENC like that wasn't exactly helpful, Doc, and maybe it was just a bit more dismissive than necessary, especially since your userpage implies you like WP:ROUGE. This is the Wikipedia namespace, after all. We do have new ideas, opinions, uncitable material, and, of course, lots of random rulecruft. You'll notice I'm not voting to keep at this time. With some effort, I think I could make this not suck, but I'm not sure that will happen. I'm not much attached to even the least unfunny revision so far, and certainly I don't like the current version. Speedy delete it if you like. I think, mostly, I just objected to being called American. 192.75.48.150 17:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Having a policy that applies to just one person goes against the entire point of making policies in the first place. --Danaman5 01:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Doc. wikipediatrix 14:05, 2 September 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.