Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Reeve jokes

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by JesseW as an attack page.-Polotet 19:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a joke book; there is a brief mention of this fad in the Christopher Reeve article, but it's not like we need a whole list of these jokes. — sjorford (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 09:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, they're not even funny.Uucp 15:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is now a joke book. Cleveland steamer, which is nothing but a slapstick sex joke, has been kept in deletion review. Consensus has determined that jokes are worthy of inclusion here. Brian G. Crawford 15:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POINT? Unlike Cleaveland steamer, this article has no list of references in pop culture and it has no need for an article of its own when it can be reference in the Christopher Reeve article. (Also, I wouldn't be so quick to assume no one ever actually performs the Cleaveland steamer—I don't have any idea if anyone does myself, but I know of other kinks which seem just as strange to me which are regularly indulged.) Delete-Polotet 15:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think I'm joking? If you think I'm trying to disrupt Wikipedia by trying to prove a point, open a RfC and prove it. I'm being completely serious, and even though I think this list of jokes is meanspirited, cruel, and ugly, there is consensus that crude jokes are worthy of inclusion. Shit jokes shouldn't be given preferential treatment over cripple jokes. Brian G. Crawford 17:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC) I change my vote to delete. This repugnant page needs to go. Brian G. Crawford 18:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you were actually trying to disrupt Wikipedia or doing so, but I've generally felt that WP:Point covers any case where you're voting in a way you feel is detrimental to the encyclopedia because of the way other people have voted in the past. That said, I can see that my comment could read as a bit of an attack and it was certainly overly harsh for this situation, and I apologize for that.-Polotet 18:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, on POV violation and as a disgracefully blatant attack page. RGTraynor 16:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I just start thinking of all the other horrible joke lists we could end up with if we kept such things. -MrFizyx 17:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.