Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Randy in Boise

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was Keep per lead balloon. Jack Merridew 05:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Randy in Boise

Non-notable and mildly amusing snippet not notable enough for mainspace article. Not normally too fussed about these things but with the amount of guff surrounding it (supposed identity/outing etc.) which has indirectly led to a request for arbitration, suggests that its continued presence is potentially disruptive and should be removed. Not a unique observation either (I should be able to supply other pages with a similar message when I have a look.) --Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Not in mainspace; Wikipedia-space. And I {{humour}}-tagged it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously merge to Wikipedia:Anti-elitism. Moreschi (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I like that idea. Keeping more of these things together is a good thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Special significance as humourous mention in Wired magazine. That it was used in an ArbCom matter is irrelevant -- the precise argument could be used to delete every article which arrives at ArbCom. Nor is "potential" a valid reason for deletion, else there are thousands of such projectspace articles to wade through. Collect (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essays don't need to be notable. Introspection about wikipedia and free culture and wiki ways is the point of essays. Gigs (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gigs and also per the fact that it's funny and relevant. U A 23:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Collect. There's something rather ironic about the "potentially disruptive" argument coming from the nominator, given, for example, the effects of a certain page in his userspace. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the most spot on pieces of humor involving this website, with significant educational value to boot.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. If only to remind ourselves of the absurd ironies at work. This essay (and the various derivatives) are brandished by pseudonymous internet tough guys while editing wikipedia in order to laugh about the shortcomings of all the pseudonymous editors on wikipedia. Let self-styled experts continue to make fools of themselves. It's not that deleting this will imbue them with any class or concern for their fellow man. Protonk (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful, nay indispensable essay originally created by one of Wikipedia's most valued and insightful (yet modest) contributors. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I have seen this quote used again and again as a personal attack. Possibly merge it with another "humorous" article or userfy. I cannot see how it will ever advance beyond a stub. Ikip 01:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'stub' is a mainspace concept. Jack Merridew 01:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that it has WP:POTENTIAL and if anything we should WP:PRESERVE it per what wikipedia is, also no one has given a reason to redlink it. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This would be unambiguous if not for the unfortunate (but ultimately predictable) real name collision from the external humor article. As is - Lore's humorous essay/article in Wired is extremely well known, nigh-on infamous in some circles, and deleting its mention in an essay here seems unreasonable and ineffective. Using the essay as a club against people is improper but should be handled as a normal user behavior problem, not by trying to WP:DENY a famous article out of existence... Stay on target, people. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gigs and others above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as useful humour ;) Jack Merridew 01:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) well that went down like a lead balloon didn't it? Alright then, if anyone feels like closing it I wouldn't care. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of IKIP being the only supporting voice for deletion here is delicious. Oh and Keep because the problem is how some people react to this, not the actual article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per all above with a touch of snow.Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 04:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Funny, relevant, and a perfectly valid essay. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2009 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.