Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of cabals

Wikipedia:List of cabals

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 Speedy kept by decree of the cabal. Avi 05:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know some humour pages indirectly help the encyclopedia. This isn't one of them. It's just a list of groups and conspiracy theories. I don't see any reason for keeping it- Pheonix15 15:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend SPEEDY KEEP based on change of heart on part of nomintor. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 02:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For one, it IS useful. People can and are referred to it when they make accusations of cabalism/conspiracy against X group. Second, it's humor and harms no one. --Durin 15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know it's humour but this doesn't help the encyclopedia. As you probably know BJAODN and Ezperanza were deleted. List of Cabals should go the same way as they are the same thing - humour pages with no other use--Pheonix15 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Esperanza was deleted because of concerns that it was a social network and that it was creating an exclusive group of editors. BJAODN was deleted because of concerns that it glorified vandalism. Neither argument is valid here. Hut 8.5 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unfunny, and it's bad to promote the idea of cabals. Majorly (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page can be useful to show people that there isn't really any giant conspiracy running Wikipedia. Besides, having humour pages helps create a more light-hearted atmosphere in the community. Hut 8.5 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepOkay, Forget it, is it possible to withdraw the nom?--Pheonix15 15:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, someone else has !voted "delete". Hut 8.5 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is humourously informative, but is there a way to remove all the crap and inside jokes? Perhaps this could be transferred to the page of a user who can take responsibility for editing. — DavidMack 16:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no cabals. -- John Reaves 17:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The sheer number of "cabals" shows that there is no cabal. It also keeps a useful record of nutjobs who have complained there is a cabal after them, and therefore may actually prevent those sorts of accusations ~~thus protecting the cabal~~. It's clearly marked as humour, and it helps editors maintain their senses of humour and sanity, especially in times of stress. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Kathryn. Neranei (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seedy Keep as withdrawn. No serious non-struck arguments for deletion remain. Eluchil404 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "seedy keep" is a new standard we should all consider using in these discussions. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this page serves to reinforce the WP:TINC page, explaining that the whole idea of cabals is a joke to most of us. —Sean Whitton / 19:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oh come one where is your sense of humor. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind! I want it kept too!--Pheonix15 23:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this page helped me blow off some steam while dealing with another, very stubborn editor (almost as stubborn as I am!), and I think it may be similarly helpful in the future. And, inside jokes are fine, they stimulate curiosity and encourage people to learn more about how Wikipedia works. 74s181 23:54, 28 August 2007 (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.