Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cluocracy

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The result of the discussion was Keep (nomination withdrawn/snowball close). Non-administrator (pending reconfirmation) close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cluocracy

This neologism seems a pointless and unhelpful article. The essay is an effective content fork of WP:NOCLUE and the shortcut could easily be redirected to that more helpful article which does not introduce unnecessary neologisms. Ash (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I fail to see how the "neologism" argument stands up when discussing a project-namespace page (especially one listed in both Category:Wikipedia essays and Category:Wikipedia humor). I also disagree that the MfD'd page and WP:NOCLUE are practically the same; they've got some overlap, yes, but not quite the black-and-white content forking that is being proposed (in my opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I am using neologism in the normal sense described at Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, that this article is included in various Wikipedia categories would not stop it being such. I did not intend to imply black-and-white content forking, my use of those words was qualified in the nomination and I apologise if that was not clear.—Ash (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the neologism is the humour! and I don't think it is necessarily appropriate to try and apply that guideline in project space, particularly in a humourous essay. Nancy ^talk 18:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nancy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appropriate for project-space. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absent any valid reason to delete. None of the nominator's arguments really apply to this essay. WP:CFORK and WP:NEO both apply to articles, not pages in the project namespace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per WP:CLUE; nominator's reasoning of WP:NEO is inferior to others' reasoning of WP:HUMOR. --slakr^\ talk / 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that the text of WP:NEO consistently refers to the use of neologisms in articles. This is not an article, and we are far more lenient about non-article space. Otherwise, we'd start nominating the likes of User:EVula and User:Slakr's user names for deletion as neologisms, as well. This short essay is perfectly appropriate for project space. Grutness...wha? 20:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NEO clearly refers to articles, not project namespace. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball at this point? As the nominator I have obviously overlooked the convention to accept humorous neologisms outside article space.—Ash (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2009 (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.