Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Assume stupidity

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume stupidity

• Delete Just plain uncivil. Even wp:Assume bad faith gives good advice. This just says that other people are stupid. I actually had someone use this today (claiming to be in jest) which I took to be a personal attack (suggesting that those who do not agree with him are stupid). This serves no purpose because it can't reasonably be used in a humorous way. It shouldn't be listed under the Wikipedia namespace, and I'm not sure it should exist on Wikipedia at all. NJGW (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We offer quite some leeway for humor and satire, but I'm not seeing it here. bibliomaniac15 05:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is funny and does have enough disclaimers that it cannot be treated seriously. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's hilarious satire. Project space has humorous content. We don't delete a page because someone used it as a personal attack. It's Wikipedia policy that no Wikipedia editor may climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man in order to gain advantage in a content dispute.. --B (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, just because people use it when they shouldn't, doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. – Elisson • T • C • 12:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is this really nominated? "Keep it simple stupid" is in common usage -- I rarely see umbrage taken. Collect (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Keep it simple, stupid was moved to that location in March 2007. All it says is "Apply the KISS principle." Not, "all other wikipedians are stupid." NJGW (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep because it's a joke, and it says so at the top of the page. Crystal whacker (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment That it's a joke is not being questioned here. But it seems fundamentally different to me from other jokes in that it calls on users to be uncivil, rather than making fun of those who are uncivil or unreasonable etc. If it were like other similar entries it would say, "Some Wikipedians will assume that all other editors are stupid," and go on to make fun of these people. What if someone started wp:All other editors are f#$ktards? I don't see why we should let any bad taste joke stay in the Wikipedia namespace. NJGW (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ever seen
    WP:DOUCHE? It was resoundingly kept at MFD and it's much further over the top than this. --B (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Do you mean User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag? That's not in Wikipedia namespace and is actually giving good advice: 'don't be a dick by calling someone a dick.' Again, this "joke" doesn't give any good advice. Also, looking over the 'keeps' at that MFD, people called that item "usefull" and "not used in malice." This one is totally unuseful and can only be used in malice. NJGW (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One of delete, userfy somewhere, or redirect to Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. Humorous pages are fine - the incivility is not really the problem here - but they need to be, well, humorous. This one reads like a whiny rant. Humorous pages should satisfy How to be Funny and Not Just Stupid, and ironically enough Assume Stupidity is itself just stupid. SnowFire (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is part of the irony! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not entirely unreasonable advice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Assuming stupidity is, in and of itself, a joke. If you don't get it, I suggest reading
  WP:SARCASM. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - openly states it's a humour page. Doesn't strike me as particularly offensive. Terraxos (talk) 20:24, 27 January 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.