Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasantblue

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pleasantblue

Pleasantblue is an arty website with no followers. Pilatus 22:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This entry is just silly.Harvestdancer 22:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website cruft. KillerChihuahua 00:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• pleasantblue is about to be deleted. -- Captain Disdain 00:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

appeal: pleasantblue doesnt seek followers: it's supposed to be silly by definition. it hardly seems any one else will have a definition for 'pleasantblue', so its not possible for it to confuse anyone by leaving silly information about it. pleasantblue is built on 'koans' which are paradoxical and silly. pleasantblue is not kipple, and has nothing to do with software. it IS however, just silly. [Oct 14 2005 8:31am PST MG]

• It is certainly true that the article is perfectly harmless. However, it is also perfectly useless. Wikipedia is not a place for perfectly useless articles about unencyclopedic topics in general, and silly ones in particular. -- ���Captain Disdain 15:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • fair enough: i'm truly not attempting to take up space on the server with uselessness, but am trying to define a concept, that is an active process, albeit silly. i do understand why it's seen as useless, and have no intent to move beyond the scope of what wikipedia is, but feel a few 'wild cards' in the mix is fairly representative of the dynamic nature of the internet and human culture in itself. (part of what pleasantblue is about). thank you for your input. i remain pleadful, for 'non-deletion consideration'. [Oct 14 2005 - MG]
    • Sure. I don't disagree at all; it certainly is fairly representative of the dynamic nature of the internet and human culture in itself. But Wikipedia is not really here to showcase either. It's a project to build an encyclopedia. I have nothing but respect for projects like yours, silly or not, but Wikipedia isn't designed to include things like this. It just isn't a place for experiments, soapboxes, artistic statements and whatnot. (That said, a new and separate Wiki project could certainly be created to accommodate things like pleasantblue -- might be something for you to look into, if you're interested.) -- �Captain Disdain 20:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• The problem is that if we accept one article like this, we can't really say "no" to anyone else who want to use wikipedia as a medium of expression rather than an compendium of existing knowledge. Kappa 23:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Words are concepts and are defined by whom? And what of 'nonce words' such as 'sniglet'. These truly warrant entries in an encyclopedia and are 'existing knowledge', as does pleasantblue.

[edit] It is a matter of values

The page for pleasantblue seems in outward appearance to be divergent to the conventions of Wikipedia. And yet if such as pleasantblue did not make appearance in Wikipedia then the world of "acceptable human knowledge" would be impoverished to the extent of accepting only the commonly acceptable. In my own view, this would be a tragic mistake. Inspiration comes in many forms from the most humble to the most impressive. Most always, it is silly. Nonetheless, the creative process should never ever be disregarded or otherwise ignored without timely consideration of what may be involved. I also think that a Wiki project closely associated with Wikipedia to accommodate such inventive thinking as pleasantblue would be appropriate. stardance 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• "In outward appearance," my ass. And it's not being discarded or ignored. It's not like it's being wiped from the sphere of human knowledge, just because it doesn't merit an article on Wikipedia. -- Captain Disdain 22:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, it was a hastily thought out comment. Thankyou for confirming my own afterthoughts. I see that MG has conceded however I am still interested in a Wiki project associated with Wikipedia that covers the huge area of human endeavour that is not classed as being within existing knowledge, and yet is essential or otherwise useful to the progress of human civilisation. I have no idea how to select such items. An interesting question in itself. My respects. stardance 16:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

conceded: your argument is clear and founded. i especially understand the concern with 'setting precedence', it shan't be pressed further. however, the "compendium of existing knowledge" - sits a little rough. there are many things i wouldn't have known existed, until i was made aware of them, often by looking them up in an encyclopedia, after having 'heard of them'.

a taste of revolutionary art shaking up dominant wiki paradigm gets my vote. knowledge can become sterile and meaningless without reference to the unknowable. a touch of randomness and aesthetic 'nonsense' is in the tradition of the playful seriousness of the 1913 armory show, the insurrectionary sarcasms of the modernists. yes, it is an unusual entry, but i would venture, that given opportunity, the page could grow and become more relevant and meaningful. i agree that leaving the page opens the door to other unusual entries. i'd like to see if the definition evolves before it's deleted. - 'mabel dodge'

• and tenderness

I think it was around the 15th century in Italy that artists originally started signing their names to their works. (I havent come to a firm reference for this yet.) Observing the consequent train of celebrity and acclaim, perhaps it would have been better if it were otherwise. For joy. Just silly painstaking wonderful joy.

communion: If whales, sharks and suchlike communicate over huge distances within a conductive medium, one might well assume they live within a state of continuous togetherness. When looking at the planet Earth, what really is the difference between water and air in terms of conductivity? And what songs do humankind sing? Instinctively.

• Not that I don't enjoy a good dose of horseshit every once in a while, but howzabout we concentrate on the matter at hand instead of pretending that we're discussing a profound matter that has tremendous consequences on every level of the human experience? Yo, admin types -- since even the original author of the piece agrees that the article should go, could we just speedy this damn thing and move on to more important things? -- �Captain Disdain 02:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. tregoweth 03:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and since when was the Armory Show playful? It was intended to be scandalous, and it was. Chick Bowen 19:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A possible context

• Three billion new capitalists. Just think. Drinking water, anyone?

[edit] A confusion of locations

i suppose it really comes down to "does pleasantblue exist"? it seems to. -'mabel dodge'

• No, it doesn't come down to that. -- Captain Disdain 10:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • if this discussion isn't about whether pleasantblue exists or not, whether or not it warrants an entry in an encyclopedia or "compendium of existing knowledge", then it seems that such a compendium doesn't exist for it to be entered into. (oct 15 '05) (-reworded)
    • perhaps this is because pleasantblue appears to follow the laws of infernal dynamics
• dont forget the tenderness...

[edit] A mess of scenarios

aside: "Hey, interesting, heh, most of them doesnt know their relativistic force-free equation from their hyperbernoulli principle. Well thats ok. Hey, fancy some chocolate?" [Ref]

1. A bevy of small strangers made entrance through the city gate, knocking first on the door of a modern and most public pavilion with a modicum of trepidation and some more innocent (some might say naive) playfulness. They were received by the inhabitants with generous consideration; dignified yet subtle assistance; and patient observance of their confusion at finding themselves within such an place of middling-high esteem. All in all, it was a respectful yet pleasant meeting and looks likely to further enable the search for chocolate. Oh, yes, and toes. stardance waves gracefully...
2. The people were no longer satisfied with "A is for apple". There was a newly formed Institution for the Conservation of Z. Something had made simple words heavy with implicit meaning, as if carved in stone. Standardised spelling was remembered as if it were a quaint aberration within history. Even slight typographic mistakes took on a freshness and vitality that was hereto unrealised. It was the time of reseeding.

[edit] The Tao of Replication

I say keep it. Or delete it now and wind up admitting it later, to your chagrin. After all, at what point does a meme become "successful"? How many people need to have formed a part of a movement before it can be said to exist? What's in a name? A rose by any other name? Taoism? Dada? What? Zen? What what?? Paradox? How can this be? What? How can What be? What? What is nothing? Nothing's gotta be something to be in here. I say delete all the entries in the Wikiverse because any attempt to describe Reality must ultimately fail. The map is not the territory, the word is not the thing. God, Brahma, Truth? What? Lies! What are we talking about? -BGood- (P.S. - Why are there entries for Unicorns?)

• I was almost entirely liquid, wholly holey and yet still immersed in a few of life's confusions? I slept a little and before waking heard a male voice saying almost as a question, though slightly more as an gentle exclamation, "Back-existing!?!" Though slightly surprised (really not being one for dreams or unseen voices), now I am still, quiet, and thinking around and about What it may be spoken..."Back existing!?!" stardance 19:57, 18 October 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.