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: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Allstarecho/Fuglies are not notable[edit]

User:Allstarecho/Fuglies are not notable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

This might have been funny back in 2008, but surely we have moved on from those days by now? Do we really want to host disparaging material like this in 2022? It's worth noting that this was originally modified from User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable which was speedily deleted (U1) by GlassCobra after a 2014 MfD by BethNaught. I have not attempted to discuss this with Allstarecho prior to the nomination - they have not edited since 2012 so it seems unlikely they will even see it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Not sure this was ever funny. We tolerate plenty of humor essays, but they at least relate to WP in a meaningful way, even if satirically. This is just silly, and "punches down".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, blank and archive as satire directed at old practice, this, and moreso User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable, are important Wikipedia-notability history. I regret that GlassCobra chose to delete their essay. It was an instrumental illustration, satirising the then immature policy-in-practice of WP:N feeding into WP:Deletion policy. I would prefer to see these essays blanked behind an archived-historic note. It was funny, and funny in a project-related educational way. It is now history. Pages used to be kept at AfD if they had nice photos, and deleted if they didn’t. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  “Funny” is a poor choice of word for satire. The page was a satirical, sarcastic, cutting, incisive send-up of the practice of the time at AfD for participants to decide “keep”/“delete” on the basis of attractiveness. It was fairly high profile, with WP:HOTTIE (now retargeted, but the incoming links relate to the old target) being well used, drawing attention to these essays. It was effective, and practice changed, Wikipedia matured. I contend that this is Wikipedia history, and should be kept, albeit blanked, for easy reference. It should be kept available as Wikipedia history, not because of how “funny” it was. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What would be better would be to write a page explaining all that, summarising in a non-derogatory way the two essays, so that people can learn about the history without having to decipher it from a "satirical" essay that lacks any context for the modern reader and so reads as simply derogatory. I've been on Wikipedia over 17 years, significantly longer than the median (last I knew anyway), and all this keeping or deleting on the basis of attractiveness predates my experience. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  My recollection: Ill-disciplined AfD !voting was common, with clear bias for keeping if there was a quality image on the article, in 2006-7, when WP:N and WP:GNG rigidity won the battles. Inclusionists were upset.

  This wasn’t just female biographies, it wasn’t just biographies, but WP:HOTTIE was frequently used sarcastically and effectively. I believe it indirectly influenced discussions at WT:N.

  I am a bit of a meta:Wikiarchaeologist, and would prefer the histories to be available, and suggest blanking behind an archive note. I agree that these pages are not appropriate to continue live. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  A similar page to these is User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house, the first three paragraphs and the image. Sarcasm: The image is what makes it notable. One of the methods used to argue against non-WP:N inclusionism was ridicule, as in these three user essays.

  The HOTTIE / FUGLIE essays went further to ridicule the use of poor definitions and extensive sub points.

  Its a bit of Wikipedia history. Not essential reading, but interesting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The sewer cover page is different in that it doesn't disparage anybody or any thing, makes its points without insult, and is clearly not intended as serious. I can't say any of that (for certain) about the Fuglies essay. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I never read HOTTIE or FUGLIE as intending to be serious. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  At least in part that will be because you know all the relevant context. This is not going to be true for the majority of people reading it, not all of whom will understand it in the spirit you say it was intended. Racist jokes are intended to be funny, and some people find them funny, but they are still racist. The same goes for sexist jokes and jokes made at the expense of people's physical appearance. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Good point.

  I have been think about a better template than the usual “humour” for pages that are satire or sarcasm. It might help.

  I am suggesting blanking with a note explaining that it was “satire directed at an old practice”. Do you think that is not good enough? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think it still gives it more legitimacy than it should have (then or now) so deletion is still my preferred course of action, but blanking with that note is an acceptable compromise of there is no consensus for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If there is no consensus to delete, then I would blank it myself. I think I have already noted everything about the history that I could say, and so deletion would not upset me. For more information, the wikiarcheology can be explored by what links to WP:HOTTIE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per SmokeyJoe, and also because It's funny, properly tagged, and doesn't really "punch down" as much as it satirizes those who do. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I accept humour is subjective, but it is not at all clear that this is satire of anybody other than those described as "fuglies". Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  While you may not see the purpose, this is (According to what I've seen) satire referring to the old trend of articles with pretty pictures surviving notability discussions at AFD far more than articles with ugly or no pictures. This may be responsible for the multitude of pornstar articles that fail GNG yet exist. It was a counterpart to the old "Hotties are always notable" essay, which was also meant to be a parody of that practice, but was deleted. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 16:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  A meta explanation, however valid, doesn't merit the essay's continued existence today. See also the deletion of Wikipedia:Poles are evil.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep so long as it does not refer to any specific people. I agree that it is a bit more mean-spirited than it is funny, but I don't think that should be the standard for deletion here. ÷seresin 18:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The standard isn't "funny" or "not funny" because that's completely subjective (I don't understand why some people find this funny, but it is clear they do). The standard is whether keeping it benefits the project in any way, and I don't understand how keeping something "mean-spirited" that disparages groups of people based on their physical appearance does anything other than bring the project into disrepute? Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It seems to me that keeping Wikipedia-related content that, as you admit, some people find funny, does indeed benefit the project in some way. I also think it's a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that this somehow brings WP "into disrepute." ÷seresin 21:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Although required for a page claiming to be humour to be kept, it is not sufficient to be funny (to some) and Wikipedia related. If you really think that hosting content that disparages people for their physical appearance, suggests they are not notable and articles about them should not be written/should be deleted benefits the project in some manner, then perhaps you could articulate what that benefit is because I'm unable to think of anything. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Blank the page - This is terrible and mean-spirited. I fail to see how anyone can derive any humor from this that isn't just a banal "ha ha ugly girls are ugly". Wikipedia Humour is not a licence to be offensive.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete this unfunny ugly essay by a departed user. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Blank and remove from {{User essays}}. I'm skeptical whether it was even worth drawing attention to this obscure essay (quietly blanking & removing the link per IAR may have been better), but contrary to the keep comments, this never appeared to be a part of old Wikipedia culture worthy of keeping for historical value - just a random deeply unfunny essay. "Unfunny" is a little dangerous to use as a criterion for outright deletion, but there's certainly no obligation to prominently link to it in any essay collections. Wikipedia is not an eternal webhost for every high schooler's failed attempt at humor, and blanking preserves the history in the unlikely event anyone cares in the future. SnowFire (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  quietly blanking & removing the link per IAR may have been better Fair point, but it didn't occur to me to consider that. I didn't arrive from an essay collection though (which may form part of it) - I found a comment about the original HOTTIE essay via something Feminist wrote and from that found this and nominated after only a brief WP:BEFORE. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Arguing about humor is rarely worth anyone’s time but I feel this is just too mean-spirited to be funny and not making some kind of obvious point about stupid behavior you shouldn’t do like satire should (since it’s lost whatever relevance it has). There’s history and then there’s just keeping offensive trash from a less enlightened time because it’s old. Dronebogus (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.