Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Headless Chickens

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 speedy keep, no arguments for deletion except the nomination of an indefinitely blocked account. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Headless Chickens

I do not know how this helps wikipedia. It is a rather silly essay that makes no real points of interest and has only been edited by one user [which shows the lack of interest in it!]. An essay on headless chickens belongs on uncyclopedia or encyclopedia dramatica, not wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriqwerty123 (talk • contribs) — Eriqwerty123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - I think it makes a very interesting and real point; it basically says don't blow things out of proportion. As an opinion piece (which all essay here are) there really should not be expected to be that many editors; it expresses the opinion of that editor. A better indication of its interest would be the number of times it is referenced; this essay is less then a month old which could easily account for the lack of linkages. There are over 300 essays in the category. I can not think of or find any policy or guideline that this essay is in violation of.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's true, but surely we don't need a whole page about it. In fact, this is really quite paradoxical, the page says 'don't blow things out of proportion', and takes a whole article talking about it! Talk about self-defeating Eriqwerty123
• Keep and expand Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep OMG worst idea ever!! Let's ban Eriqwerty123 for making such a terrible suggestion and while we're at it, we should abolish MfD so nobody can ever make such an awful nomination ever again!!! Seriously though rephrases good points from WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in a humorous way. --Dgies 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've never read this essay before, but now I'm quite fond of it. It does, as Dgies said, rehash some excellent concepts and core policies. -- Kicking222 23:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a humorous way of pointing out things about blowing things out of proportion. It's humorous, inoffensive and deleting it would be a shame. --SunStar Net^talk 00:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Where exactly do people get the idea that we must always be perfect unhumorous blobs? Only in articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep whoa! This essay is a bit like WP:DICK which shouldn't be deleted either. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 09:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I have indef-blocked Eriqwerty123 after he filed a blatantly bad-faith RfC consisting of nothing but coarse personal attacks, against Richard0612, the author of this essay. Suggest speedy closing of this MfD too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 9 December 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.