Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Censorship
I say: censor it! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Heh, that's pretty good! El_C 03:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, as the article claims, satire, not encyclopedic. Wyss 02:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The article admits that it's not encyclopedic. Carrp 03:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- delete satire Wolfman 04:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: satire. Stombs 05:24, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsense, not satire. —Stormie 11:26, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 20:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure "satire" is the right word here; usually satire 1. is funny, and 2. makes a semblence of sense. This does neither. Two semi-literate sentences do not an article make, in or out of the Wikipedia namespace. Delete. -R. fiend 21:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, un-encyclopaedic, hoax. Megan1967 23:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Why not to delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Extreme_article_deletion. It is non-Encyclopedic so that's why it is not under article domain. Currently is there any policy on wikipedia about non-domain space articles? Any way if it is deleted I'll create it on my own user space. If it is not declared 'unappropriated user page', It can be put on wikinfo.org. There is no point of stoping speach on internet.Zain 01:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Someone who didn't spot your use of "speach" there might have asked you to learn the difference between letting everyone write whatever they like about anything that they like and writing an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 02:39, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
- Why don't you put Extreme article deletion up for VfD? Two bad ideas don't make a good idea. —Ben Brockert (42)
- Hey. Been there done that. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 02:58, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as useless. It's certainly not satire in any sense I understand that word, unless the satire consists of going "Look! A vacuous article!" -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- The community probably *has* to have in-jokes somewhere outside the article namespace, or they'll end up within in it. Having said that, I don't think this qualifies as an injoke. Delete - to the extreme. Lacrimosus 10:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It took less than a day to delete my white minority rule article (I'm pretty certain the only other VfD I ever been signatory too), but this article which consists of two sentence fragments and mis-spells "attempts," and is signed by the author, has a lengthy, active vote and is still up. Therefore, as a sign of good faith in the VfD process, I am voting Keep; keep, keep, keep! El_C
- You may wish to sign your vote, since anon ones aren't much good. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Good point! El_C 02:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You may wish to sign your vote, since anon ones aren't much good. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Not an official (or unofficial policy), or even funny like that wrong version thing at Meta. Delete or expand to patent nonsense; I'm sure that someone could come up with something funny, even a randomly changing redirect to, say, Cabal, CIA or the like. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 16:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)