Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:May contain nuts

Wikipedia:May contain nuts

This page contributes nothing to the encyclopedia. The page was created in response to an ongoing edit war at Solar System. (I am involved in the edit war.) Note that Category:May contain nuts was twice created and speedy deleted. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, HarryAlffa, created this definition as a humorous/sarcastic/ironic piece. The origin of the piece is explained in the article itself, the only addition ASHill supplies is the twice deletion of it as a category - I tried to persuade that it was a legitimate category and failed. ASHill inspired me to recreate it as a humorous piece a week later when he directed me to Wikipedia:The Truth to make a point in the talk page. I thought the Wikipedia:The Truth humorous article was written (unknown to me) in the same vein as my own "May contain nuts", which is why I put it in the Humour category. ASHill apparently has been "spying" on all my contributions, because I have not linked to this new "May contain nuts" page from the Solar System talk page - if this conclusion can be drawn, how sad is he?

The nomination for deletion is mean-spirited, and made with a sense-of-humour-bypass as a shot in the edit war - as ASHill virtually admits above. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an inside joke. Perhaps an example of self-reference, it currently doesn't seem very informative to other people. This may motivate the deletion nomination. Hyacinth (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't written as an inside joke (I don't work in a supermarket!). It was written as the complete opposite of an inside joke (whatever that may be). I wrote it so that it could be universally applied to ANY article that was boringly written, or poorly laid out. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I nominated it for deletion; I do not think the page does effectively serves a constructive or informative purpose, even through humor. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you would say that! It doesn't look like you had a high and mighty purpose. My inspiration was annoyance, but the article itself COULD be applied to a boringly written or poorly laid out article. You simply cannot refute this assertion. Someone in a talk page could easily link to this, and make a valid point in a humorous way, saving a lot of everyone's time. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We usually keep any humorous essay that relates to editing wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Neutral, but this looks a bit like canvassing to me. Can anyone (particularly User:HarryAlffa) explain how I was selected to receive that message?

--Thinboy00 @996, i.e. 22:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, not funny. But more importantly, the humor around here tends to have a point at least, such as the aforementioned "truth"...see also really, really stupid page ideas, rouge admins, and, of course, the ever popular parliament-building-climbing restriction. There's an underlying idea behind them, or at they very least, they're actually funny. Here, I don't see the point. For the record, the only time the phrase "may contain nuts" is ever actually funny is when it's on a jar of peanuts. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some good points below. Userfy if kept, but still pushing for the delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing a problem here. Failing a keep consensus, userfy. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serves no useful purpose. As well, creator has been edit-warring for quite some time at Solar System and this is a clear extension of that action. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and userfy. There is nothing outstandingly problematic about writing a page in reaction to an edit war. If it helps HarryAlffa to understand the situation better and to maybe distance himself from that edit war, it definitely serves a purpose. — But so far it's a diary entry rather than a Wikipedia essay and should be userfied accordingly. Also, nominating the page for deletion when you were involved, as ASHill was, in that edit war on Solar System, it's at least as inappropriate to nominate this page for deletion as writing it. Indeed more so, imho. user:Everyme 09:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair. It was in the interest of full disclosure because that I said at the outset that I've been involved with the creator of the page. However, I nominated the page for deletion because I don't believe that it is appropriate for Wikipedia space, irrespective of our edit conflict (to the extent I can make an independent judgement). I'll stay out of the rest of the discussion unless I'm asked something.

I don't believe it belongs in Wikipedia space, which makes it seem like a community essay rather than an individual diary entry. I do support this being deleted/moved from Wikipedia space and kept in User space, where it's already duplicated, at User:HarryAlffa. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 12:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Potentially useful humorous essay. Spacepotato (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and userfy Humorous essay is extremely new and most likely in progress. The essay relates to the encyclopedia, and appears to be a quasi-diary of his time here. As far as I can tell, there isn't anything specifically problematic with it, so I would support userfying for the time being. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]