Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:NOTA

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 userfy. bibliomaniac15 21:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:NOTA

Not funny. Not appropriate in project space. Pascal.Tesson 20:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Retain, harmless. This comes off to me as another BJAODN-bashing. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Unlike BJAODN this doesn't even have a long history to fall back on. It looks like there is one main author, so it could just be userfied. The Wikipedia namespace is not a humor gallery. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I could have sworn there was something precisely like this when I first registered here in August '06. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 22:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are other, similar pages that are older than this one. They weren't nominated here, but they aren't any more appropriate. The point of WP is for policy documents, help pages, maybe a few essays, but jokes and nonsense should be moved to a wiki whose mission is to publish jokes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Userfy - Userfying this seems like the best soloution, considering there is essentially only one editor who has contributed to this article. --Eye of the Mind 23:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy - this has no place in WP namespace. /Blaxthos 17:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy - Until then, we could stand to be a little more highbrow with our humor, no? --WaltCip 18:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy per above. Another one to add: This page is NOT funny in the least. --UsaSatsui 23:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy As Carl appears to suggest, were this a humor page edited by a non-trivial number of users and more prominently and broadly known, especially if long-standing, it might well merit maintenance in project space, but as it is this is essentially a "humorous" (it's not, IMHO, entirely unfunny; there may be as many as two items that lead one to chuckle) essay/compilation authored principally by one user, and so, per Eye, is well-situated in userspace. Joe 02:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy For the reasons best stated by the previous five participants in this discussion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:56, 8 October 2007 (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.