Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Suitly emphazi

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. 15:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suitly emphazi and {{emphazi}}

I don't mean to spoil anyone's fun, and I do find the joke mildly funny, but I fail to see how pages on in-jokes such as Wikipedia:Suitly emphazi contribute to our building an encyclopedia. That alone is (realistically) not grounds for deletion, but:

• the use of this in-joke is arguably uncivil (see the "Civility" section of the page itself) because it's confusing to non-veterans of the Reference Desk (see this exchange which prompted me to file this MfD).
• it's in marginal use as evident from "What links here".
• it's already more appropriately covered, if it ought to be covered at all, at Wikipedia:Glossary#S.

I am also co-nominating for deletion the related template {{emphazi}}, for the same reasons. I have also listed it at Templates for deletion, but I propose we discuss the deletion of both the page and the template in the same discussion, here. Sandstein 09:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or move to User: space. —Keenan Pepper 17:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, etc. per nom.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  19:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepRedirect, per below, or at least move...somewhere. This phrase is in quite frequent use on the reference desk and probably elsewhere - what links here is a poor gauge, since (in every usage I've ever seen) it's usually just text, not a link. I think its meaning has to be outlined somewhere, lest we be swamped with questions regarding its meaning. Whether it ought to be used is debatable, but it is used, and I think it needs to be defined somewhere for people like me who frequently read the reference desk (and other "social" pages), but never saw the original question, and are left completely clueless. A Wikipedia search of all namespaces] returns only 28 results, but I feel pretty confident I've seen it at least that many times myself. However, I support the deletion of the template, as it could only ever be used as a joke. I think they should be discussed seperately though. -Elmer Clark 02:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the entry at Wikipedia:Glossary#S enough? We can make it a redirect there. Sandstein 05:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

...somehow I totally missed that in the nomination. Wow, my bad. Vote changed :) -Elmer Clark 06:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Kill it with kindness. ^BlankVerse 20:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete .. hey that's me at that link! anyway why would that exchange in particular make you start a deletion for it, the original poster wasn't confused by the in-joke (he never replied) and everyone who did reply "got it." But I agree, tt should be fine at the glossary and it doesn't really deserve an article in the WP namespace. subst:emphazi can be useful though, keep that! --Froth 22:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Completely irrelevant to the encyclopaedic goal. Only has relevence on the community level (and then only to a minority), and hence not fit to ever be used, and thus merely pointless. Cain Mosni 22:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What you're describing is the WP namespace, which is where the page is o_O --Froth 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. In-jokes shouldn't be documented. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:46, 14 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.