Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Confirmation bias bias confirmed

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 - I hate Wikipedia space essays as much as the next guy, but the consensus here is clear. Wily D 06:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Confirmation bias bias confirmed

Nonsense. ibicdlcod (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page was speedily deleted as "patent nonsense" after the MFD was started, and this MFD was closed procedurally. But I've undeleted the page (with the permission of the deleting admin) to allow this MFD to continue. If reopening this MFD is out of process, let me know and I guess I can start a new one, but reopening seems so much easier I thought I'd try it and see if anyone screams at me. I'll express an opinion on deletion later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete anyway, unfunny nonsense. I tagged it as G1 before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - TPH, haven't you been warned that you shouldn't replace removed CSD tags? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete or userfy to the creator. there is nothing remotely related to wikipedia or its policies or practices.-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: Semi-relevant RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 28#Wikipedia:CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or if necessary userfy. I have reviewed the content of this essay in detail and I don't C what the problem is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Wikipedia:There is no ccccccccccccccccccccabal. Keep because it's nice to have evidence that there used to be old dinosaur editors around who didn't take things so seriously. And because it's quite a compositional accomplishment. Rename because it seems to me (and my limited reading comprehension skills) that this is actually what it's about. Plus, IMHO, it's funnier. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was tl; no wonder some dr. I fixed it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "nonsense" criteria definitely doesn't apply here because this essay can be understood if you try to read it instead of seeing all those "C-words" and assuming the content is crap. I'd like to think that an essay created by an editor of LessHeard vanU's calibre would be kept regardless of the content, but since a "better" reason is required: The purpose of this essay is to get across a point in a humourous way, one of the reasons we have essays is to make other editors laugh and make them feel part of a community made up of human beings, as opposed to a lonely person in a sea of robots. I feel that the deletion of this essay would make other editors wary of introducing humourous content in to the project space, making such content harder to find, to the detriment of the community's health. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because ILIKEIT! Tex (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is difficult, I admit (because I wrote it and I know it took quite a lot of effort and brain power), but that does not make it "nonsense". There is a serious message underneath; that when a group of people reach the same conclusions or point of view, drawn from the same or similar good resources, using the best language to address the issue, then there is likely to be a similarity in word and phrase choices - because this is the way the process works (there are only so many ways an idea can be paraphrased). This does not mean that there are sockpuppets at work, although there may be a superficial appearance of same. Of course, I may have written much the same in plain English - knowing that it would be, if ever chanced upon, forgotten quickly. I wrote it as I did so it would have to be read a few times to be understood, and hopefully would lodge in the mind (for a while, anyway) of the reader. Also, of course, I hoped that the reader would smile and even wonder at what kind of wonderful and insightful editor would write such ~~tosh~~prose...

Iff the result of this debate is delete, please note that I do not need to userfy the text - although anyone who wants to need not ask my permission (but please acknowledge source if used elsewhere) - and iff it is keep could someone please resurrect the redirects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that Mrmatiko has it exactly right. DBaK (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (userify if requested). fails WP:ESSAYS. The message is lost or at least falls second to the art project effort to use words that begin with a "C". -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . This exactly the kind of stuff we don't need if we are going to build a respected, reader-serving encyclopedia. Everyone is entitled to their own sense of humour (however strange) but not to impose it on others in Wikispace. --Klein zach 00:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is why we have templates such as {{Humor}}. You're not imposing on others simply by putting this in projectspace; "imposing" would be something like an attempt to put this into a policy page or a heavily-linked essay. Nyttend (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleverly composing a C pun is considerably more complicated than it ceems. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 14:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Propose that a parallel paragraph preserving "Pun"'s p-ness is probably prettier, and pleasingly practical DBaK (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a harmless bit of fun that doesn't run afoul of WP:ESSAY. Why delete something that's not a harm to the encyclopedia? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My $0.02 cents worth... My opinion is keep due to Mrmatiko's reasoned arguments which were seconded by DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. One observation of my own - did the Delete voters understand it? Or did they just jump to conclusions before working out its meaning? Perhaps their first-language is not English for the Delete voters? Just a thought. Geoffjw1978 ^T^L^C 23:45, 25 September 2012 (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.