Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The Zen of Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep, bordering on snowball closure. — xaosflux Talk 00:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:The Zen of Wikipedia

Someone's idea of a joke. Probably can be deleted as nonsense under WP:NON or "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" under WP:NOT. GDallimore (Talk) 16:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment, well, it's clearly not nonsense as defined by that page, and it's not too different from other essays. Essays are generally given some leniency. I don't know how I feel, but it's not a nonsense page. Leebo T/C 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I see it as a form of Surreal humour which, as pointed out in that article, is based on nonsense juxtaposition of ideas. I think the nommed article qualifies as nonsense on the grounds that it doesn't actually make sense even though it may appear to on the surface (nonsense of the second type in WP:NON)GDallimore (Talk) 17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you're unfamiliar with koans, because the essay makes sense to me. Leebo T/C 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I do recognise the source for the content of the this essay, although that was not a term I have heard before. But taking known "koans" and substitutnig wikipedia phrases into them does not mean the result is a koan, nor does it mean it makes sense and certainly it does not make it funny - if it had succeeded on the last I would have left this essay alone but having failed to even make me smile it just looked like deletion fodder to me. GDallimore (Talk) 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
          • The reasoning seems to be changing here... First it was nonsense, and now it's because it's not funny... Humor is subjective, and shouldn't be regarded as deletion criterion. Userfying is an option I think you're overlooking even though others have mentioned it. Leebo T/C 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Second comment I want to note that I am not particularly pleased with the creator of the essay, who advertised it in several inappropriate forums, such as WP:AN and WP:VP. However, his conduct is not a factor in the decision for me. Leebo T/C 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or userfy to the userspace of the original author. Doesn't seem especially helpful, but opinion essays are generally allowed, and it's not in any way divisive or unconstructive. Plus, it may have a hidden meaning that we haven't understood. WaltonOne 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's neither nonsense (these are koans); and it's not an article, so is not subject to the original thought prohibition. - Bevo 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy - Keep and userfy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is beautiful. It is harmless. It can even be useful. It has the zen-nature. Aum. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't delete an essay (not an article) to punish an editor for spamming. --barneca (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or at most userfy. Philosophy pages are all right, even if I don't particularly care for this one. I have to admit, though, that "What is the sound of one editor building consensus?" is sort of clever. Haukur 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's in the spirit of many of the other essays. At any rate, it is decidedly not nonsense as it does make coherent points and it's not a joke as it is making a serious point. --Tim4christ17 talk 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Essay != article. Agathoclea 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This isn't in the article space (where WP:OR would apply), its in the Wikipedia: space. Harmless essay/meta-commentary. Wickethewok 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is distinctly possible that I have no sense of humor ... but I really think we ought to start clearing project space of all but the best non-serious content. WP: space is self-referential and not encyclopedia content, but it should still be presentable/respectable. Obviously, I'm in the minority on this right now ... but cleaning house of these unmonitored joke pages ought to be done at some point. --B 19:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • koans are not jokes. They containing aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding, yet that may be accessible to intuition. - Bevo 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Eh. I'd rather see this in User space. But WP:NOT paper... even project space. Mangojuicetalk 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is barely funny, and has no other redeeming feature.-gadfium 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh my goodness keep. Wikipedia space != article space. --Iamunknown 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; I don't personally find it useful or funny, and the author was greatly mistaken to advertise it the way they did, but neither of these would be a reason to delete it. It isn't doing any harm. --John 21:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Several people are saying that it's not an article so it should be kept. I never suggested it should be deleted because it's not a good article. My motivation for nominating it was that it appears it's only purpose is to draw attention to the author. Things in wiki space need to be monitored too and guidelines like WP:NOT, especially the one I quoted, should transcend article space. If they do not, then vandals can just create wiki-space essays and claim asylum. GDallimore (Talk) 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; it's sensical, pleasing, and makes some good points in a very elegant way. — The Storm Surfer 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fool speaks, the wise man listens.--WaltCip 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment—it would do no one harm to assume a bit of good faith. It appears to me as though the author wished to get some more koan contributions, not tell the Wikipedia community how great the essay he started is. GracenotesT § 03:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as it should never have been nominated in the first place. It's an essay, for Pete's sake (whoever Pete is). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see any problem this page is causing other than this deletion discussion. --Hirohisat Talk 06:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't believe that the namespace specifically meant for internal use and not for the readers qualifies as 'publishing'. --Kizor 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I fail to see how this is any different from many of the other essay articles in the project namespace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's plenty of humour in project space, and while I don't find it all terribly humourous, humour is subjective. Dcoetzee 21:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oh, come on.... just because you don't understand it, ;) More seriously, anybody can write an essay about anything they please as long as it's somewhere near "coherent" and has to do with Wikipedia. -- The_socialist talk? 15:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy Not funny or useful. Atropos 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, add {{humor}}. Not as funny as WP:SPIDER; but there are several editors who could benefit from "The use of IAR that is noticed is not the true IAR." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The inclusionists and deletionists are not kind. They treat essays on the nature of Wikipedia like straw dogs. It is best to contemplate the void. -- llywrch 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep! It is an essay, and essays obviously can be original thought! A.Z. 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is projectspace page enlightens some and harms none. Essays that aren't attack pages or gibberish (and I mean "DSFARGEG" gibberish) are fine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or BJAODN. Short but hillarius. I think it should be made 50x longer. ~AH1(TCU) 14:52, 28 July 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.