Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Hotties are always notable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 debate was Userfied. Forgive the early closure here, but the outcome seems predictable. This page obviously has humor value for a substantial number of editors; it also obviously strikes a number of editors as being in poor taste. Given that substantial numbers on both sides of the issue have spoken, and accepting the truth of the maxim de gustibus non disputandum for purposes here, further discussion seems likely to add more heat than light. The compromise solution has been offered: moving this to userspace will remove the implication that it is accepted as humorous by the community in general, while allowing those who enjoy the humor to continue to read and refine it as they wish. EVula was the first volunteer, so one may find the essay at User:EVula/Hotties are always notable. Xoloz 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: when I made the offer, I didn't realize GlassCobra was the original author (checking the history is so time-consuming...). I've honored his request for it to be moved back to User:GlassCobra/Hotties are always notable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Hotties are always notable

While I understand it's intended for humour, I think this strays a little too close to WP:BLP. - jc37 16:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this looks more like a joke than anything else. We already have notability guidelines that arewell defined, and it is also, per nom, near WP:BLP. Although thispage is probably popular with some people, it's unnecessary. --tennisman 16:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sexist humour is not welcome, Wikipedia is not a hate site. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Calling someone "hot" is hardly "hate". This kind of attitude devalues the suffering of people who are the victims of real hate crimes. Let's keep some perspective here. Lurker (said · done) 17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Girls named Bertha and Bessie usually resemble Rosie O'Donnell. I'm not sure what you call that where you come from... --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The "edit" button is the proper way to alleviate concerns about that particular statement, not the "delete" button. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
And, with my own words in mind, I made a few edits to the page.[1][2] A bit better now, in my opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm normally a fan of funny essays, but this isn't... funny. нмŵוτнτ 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • EDIT: The article also nothing to do with an encyclopedia and does not belong in the namespace, among many other things. нмŵוτнτ 20:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy if the creator will take it (it was originally in userspace), otherwise delete. It's a humour page created largely by one user, and isn't funny enough to go in mainspace. Lurker (said · done) 17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Geez, rough crowd. I guess that's what I get for linking to it on AN. Oh well. GlassCobra 17:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy, since it was created by a single user and hasn't really been expanded upon in a meaningul way by anyone else. Leebo T/C 17:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep No... really. :P userfy. The best notability guideline ever tho. :P Kyaa the Catlord 17:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - sorry, but... no. Not even as humor. --Orange Mike 17:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up while drunk one day. —Cryptic 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lighten up, people. And if you find some of the humor offensive, or sexist, there's always that "Edit this page" option over on the sidebar. (One could always add Brad Pitt to the list of examples.) -- llywrch 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy and tag with {{humor}}. --Solumeiras talk 18:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Er, what? It's already got the {{humor}} tag on it. GlassCobra 19:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not funny.-gadfium 18:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete humor pages have to be funny. JuJube 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete isn't really that funny, there is worse that should be MFDs though This is a Secret account 19:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Userfy, very humorous piece of work, and perhaps we can add more value to it such as in other funny essays Dreadstar † 20:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete First of all, not funny. Secondly, I do not believe that there should be humor pages on wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia. If you want to make humor pages go to Uncyclopedia.--SJP 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Userify this osrt of stuff is usually better off in userspace. Hut 8.5 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Userify - Wikipedia can do without providing ammunition to people who already object to breast and such. WAS 4.250 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A bad joke and some poor judgment to post it in WP name space. (However, if this was a userpage, I doubt anyone would much care.) I urge the creator (an admin) to bite the bullet and save face by speedy-ing it themselves.--12 Noon 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy - Obviously not meant seriously :) (BTW - Some of the commenters need a sense of humour transplant) Exxolon 22:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Leave it, for God's sake. It's humour. And unliek a lot of Wikipedia humour, it is actually funny - an amusing take on all those hundreds of porn "star" bios. It's not sexist, it has both genders on the list. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note I added men to the list, as well, to make it more gender-neutral for the time being, but I still think that it should not stay on Wikipedia, at least not in the namespace. нмŵוτнτ 00:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not funny, should not be in project space and does not help the community or the project. --Coredesat 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, you humorless, Dworkinite cads. <eleland/talkedits> 02:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This has nothing to do with feminism. The article is simply not humorous, has nothing to do with an encyclopedia, and does not belong in the namespace, among many other things. I don't see to whom your feminist statement applies, besides to one person on here. нмŵוτнτ 03:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or at the very least Userfy and circulate widely. It is humorous at least to most (or SHOULD be), and claims of sexism and non-validity are ludicrous, as outlined by fellow keep votes above. DEVS EX MACINA pray 06:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment In my case, this has nothing to do with sexism or non-validity. This is just NOT funny. I've seen crap on Something Awful's front page that is more chuckle-worthy than this. JuJube 07:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • And so the page should be deleted just because of your particular sense of humor? That's not exactly fair; clearly some people find it funny. It seems to me that "well, I don't think it's funny, so it should be deleted" is not very valid logic. GlassCobra 07:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Exactly. I'm actually interested to know if it's a cultural thing.. I'm Australian and I find it hilarious.. maybe it's just my culture's brand of humour, with more similarities to British humour than American. DEVS EX MACINA pray 08:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
          • FYI: one person mentioned sexism. This isn't the basis for why people want it deleted. нмŵוτнτ 15:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Right, most people have been saying it should be deleted because they don't find it funny, but as I said, that's not really valid. GlassCobra 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Well, I assume that they mean if it has nothing to do with the encyclopedia and it shouldn't normally be kept, it should at least be funny. That's what I said in my comment, at least. As if that was the last thing that would maybe keep it in, but it failed that. нмŵוτнτ 00:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
                • Hey, I think it's pretty funny! And so do all the other people voting for it to be kept. :P GlassCobra 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am not sure what this is supposed to satirize. Good humor has an element of truth, or a serious point behind it, and I fail to see it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Humor is in the eye of the beholder. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It can be marked as humor, but i dont see why this should be on Wikipedia, let alone as a (nonserious) guideline. --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 11:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or at worst Userfy. Essentially harmless. Besides, isn't the "unwritten policy" that failed notability proposals are tagged historical rather than deleted, no matter how offensive they are in light of current policies? Surely you can find more offensive mudslinging from among the failed proposals. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Wikipedia ought to show a sense of humo(u)r at least on occasion. *Dan T.* 16:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, funny. This !vote should have the same weight as the "Delete, not funny" !votes, as the rationale is the same. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep // Userfy I'd be happy with this being moved into my userspace (User:EVula/Hotties are always notable) if it is determined that it shouldn't be in the main project namespace. Otherwise, I don't see much reason for it to be deleted; the biggest concerns about the page would be better addressed with some editing, not deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No way; I get this if it can't stay in mainspace. :P GlassCobra 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedians having a laugh at Wikipedia's expense. Great! :o) ~ Riana ⁂ 00:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's funny. I'd rather it be in userspace though. And although I chuckled when I read it, the comments about Rosie are rather tasteless and should go. But as said above, [edit] is better than [delete]. I (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I removed them earlier.[3] EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Those, IMO, are even more funny. I was aware they had been removed, I was just commenting about the BLP concerns. I (talk)
  • Keep or userfy. Its funny. Its harmless. —Dark•Shikari[T] 03:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest Keep ever. Are you serious, BLP? Doesn't even apply here. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 08:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very funny. However, I would not be averse to userfication, with a redirect. Abeg92contribs 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's harmless and intended as humo[u]r.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW). They express opinions and ideas that are absolutely and irrefutably true whether you like them or not. Hiding Talk 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
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.