Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Society for the Preservation of the Quazer Beast

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 the Wikipedia space being full of rubbish as much as the next guy (or gal), but the standards are what they are, and combined with the headcount, there's no other outcome possible here. The irony of quoting WP:STALEDRAFT to argue for deletion of unneeded Wikipedia space stuff is not lost on me. Wily D 08:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Society for the Preservation of the Quazer Beast

Yes, it's in humor space, but this is also stealth WP:STALEDRAFT. instead of being deleted, the hoax article was moved to userspace, and this "humor" page was built around it. The only intent of this project is to preserve the content of a hoax article. This page has almost no inbound links and hasn't been touched since 2009. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm uncertain of what you're alleging, but it's pretty clear you missed the point. The purpose of the page, aside from low-order humor, was to illustrate a hoax and offer some commentary on how our standard processes masked it for a lengthy period. Mackensen (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is actually a cautionary tale about looking out for hoaxes and, as Mackensen says, they can be overlooked as they get treated to good-faith wikification and categorisation. It could usefully be expanded with an example of an article that was mistaken for a hoax but actually wasn't, but being incomplete in this regard is not a reason to delete it, nor is not being worked on for a long time. This is not the draft of an article and so the stale draft guidelines are irrelevant. The intent of the project is to try and identify hoax articles much earlier in their life cycle so they don't end up like this one, which would seem to benefit Wikipedia far more than any harm that could arise from the inclusion in a corner of project space of a former article that explicitly declares itself a hoax. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Userfy. TPH is more convincing here than Mackensen and Thryduulf. Page is hardly humorous — more of a failed in-joke. Surely we don't need it? --Klein zach 06:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again you're missing the point. The page isn't intended to be a joke, it's a mildly humorous presentation of how good-faith improvements to an article can mask it being a hoax. How would deleting this benefit the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a rather curious procedure, though admittedly odd things happen at MfD. First, let's do the usual gripe about no one listed on the project page being contacted about the nomination, despite the fact that some of us are still active. Whatever, I have a watchlist and I noticed. It would have been a kindness all the same. Second, the nominator managed to take a page illustrating the dangers of hoaxes and turn that into a bizarre claim that this is somehow a WP:STALEDRAFT! Of what? That rather stands the idea on its head. Third, we're now being told that this is in fact a failed, unfunny joke, and that it should be deleted for that. Leaving aside the fact that much of what is tagged as humor around here misses the mark, this page is a serious essay written in a laid-back tone and wasn't intended nor ever understood, until now, as a joke. This is a pretty sorry display all-around. Mackensen (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I claimed no-one was notified. This turns out not to be the case; TenPoundHammer notified the anonymous IP address who created the original (hoax) article. I realize that's Twinkle's doing but it compounds the ludicrousness of the nomination. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Mackensen and Thryduulf. It definitely doesn't qualify as a WP:STALEDRAFT. The little green pig (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Critical work related to the project. Not liable to be confused with a real article. Success-of-joke is not a criteria for keeping, but relevance to the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mackensen et al. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My question (above) "Surely we don't need it?" was answered by SmokeyJoe etc., so I've changed my opinion from 'delete' to 'userfy'. On reflection, I think that's the best way of handling this. I remain of the view that we have to raise standards in WPspace. --Klein zach 15:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the hope that you provide a more substantive reply, I'll re-post the note that I left on your talk page: "As the author of Wikipedia:Society for the Preservation of the Quazer Beast, it's fascinating to be told what my intent was years after the fact by people I've never really interacted with. It's no more an in-joke, failed or otherwise (and how it can be judged a failure by someone not part of the in-joke, assuming it's an in-joke, which it's not, is beyond me), than any other essay in project space. I'd like to encourage you to re-read the essay with the idea that it's trying to communicate a point about hoaxes, then re-consider your view." Why this would be appropriate for userspace is unclear to me. You say we should raise standards, but you don't say what those standards are or why this doesn't meet them. Mackensen (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2013 (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.