Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia gremlins
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. This thing isn't "laugh-out-loud" funny, but it is "makes-me-smile" funny (of course, that's subjective), so I'm not going to add an historical tag. Humor doesn't age that fast! Xoloz 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia gremlins
This article does not reflect any real phenomenon. At best, the content could be included at WP:BJAODN, however I don't find it funny enough for that.. meco 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- What, does the {{humor}} tag not give it away? ;-) I would lean towards keeping it, if only because it's been around since May 2001, and is thus likely to be one of the earliest examples of Wikipedia humor. Kirill Lokshin 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I yield to that fact. However, since I see no other reason to keep it it think it should be labeled and/or be categorized accordingly. As a piece of humorous writing it doesn't stand up. __meco 07:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about tagging it with {{historical}} instead of {{humor}}? --Zoz (t) 17:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't quite cover it. I suppose we don't have a template to classify "Vintage Wikipedia" stuff kept as memorabilia and for no other reason. __meco 18:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- That might be true, but I don't think we should delete this just because we don't have an appropriate template to classify it. And since it isn't very {{humor}}ous, I thought {{historical}} is the closest approximation. --Zoz (t) 18:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't quite cover it. I suppose we don't have a template to classify "Vintage Wikipedia" stuff kept as memorabilia and for no other reason. __meco 18:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about tagging it with {{historical}} instead of {{humor}}? --Zoz (t) 17:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I yield to that fact. However, since I see no other reason to keep it it think it should be labeled and/or be categorized accordingly. As a piece of humorous writing it doesn't stand up. __meco 07:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for historical reasons. Ardric47 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- BJAODN per nominator. — Reinyday, 01:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Ardric47. --Zoz (t) 17:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for historical purposes. Ral315 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mark historical and tongue-in-cheek. Ashibaka tock 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This shouldn't be that difficult. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete --does not help in writing an encyclopedia, pure garbage/fiction has no place here. Polonium 13:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per Ardric47. Leave the old, lame humor be! --Umdunno 04:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for historical reasons. Tag it with {{historical}}. It's not that funny, but it could easily be one of the first examples of wikihumor. Srose (talk) 18:46, 16 August 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.
