Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun (4th nomination)

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 per WP:SNOW. The nominator must now realise that the community does not share his view; any further re-nomination in the short term will be considered disruptive. JohnCD (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Department of Fun

The department of fun is, in my opinion, of absolutely no value to wikipedia. It may even promote vandalism by putting the idea that "joke edits", which are vandalism, are acceptable, and many of the pages within the scope of this project (such as the page Please bite the newcomers) are violations of wikipedia policy. Although I am aware that it states at the top of these pages that it "is not, and never will be, wikipedia policy" I still think deletion is the best course of action, because after all, what is the point of maintaining pages that are not wikipedia policy. This is a serious encyclopedia, not a toy. Immunize (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Deletion discussions:
Keep, February 26, 2010, see MfD 4. Speedy keep, March 18, 2007, see MfD 3. Speedy keep, December 7, 2006, see MfD 2. Speedy keep, December 3, 2006, see MfD. Keep, July 1, 2005, see AfD.

Procedural note: I have added the MfD tag to the page, as it was absent. I've also added the list of prior discussions above.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this MfD does, at least, employ a rationale (as opposed to this one of a few days ago), I don't find that rationale terribly compelling. Perhaps the nominator would be willing to elaborate on exactly how this would encourage vandalism, because I just can't see that. --Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why are you trying to take the fun away? :( -Nard 23:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Thryduulf's reasoning here. Immunize is just wasting our time with this. PDCook (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Violates no policies or guidelines. Saying something might do something is crystal ball gazing at best. As for requiring fun stuff to be serious - Shirley you can not be Sirius. Collect (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lightspeed Keep Immunize already nommed for deletion, and I find no compelling reason. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. First, Wikipedia is a community, and every community needs a little fun to keep it working. Secondly, most humorous pages are actually trying to satirise something, and are invaluable opinions from Wikipedians, not just jokes. Finally, it works as a navigational tool for all fun-related areas, which is useful. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close it seems the nominator really wants to delete everything in Category:Wikipedia_humor rather than the DoF page itself, judging by the nomination statement. I suggest that if you have a problem with a specific page that has that tag, you should nominate that specific page rather than trying to delete hundreds of articles at once. Gigs (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. SNOWBALL FIGHT! Fences&Windows 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never stated I desired to delete everything in the category Wikipedia:Humor. I feel that after the department of fun and it's subpages are deleted, Wikipedia:Humor articles should be scrutinized closely, and if needed considered for deletion. Immunize (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the DOF page isn't going to be deleted, so if you have specific problems with specific pages, you should probably nominate them separately. Gigs (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheese and Crackers! Keep But you don't have to be a member of the department, Immy, if you don't want to be (as if!). If you were successful in deleting it, we members would just form the Fun Cabal and where would you be then? Isn't it better just to keep us all in one box of chocolates (with a nutty center, of course)? Isn't there a way to immunize this page? Oh, wait a minute, that's what's happening, darn it. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing wrong with this department; it doesn't detract from the encyclopedia and you aren't compelled to be involved in it, so what's the problem? Alzarian16 (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball, Procedural, Major, Strong Keep Keep, Keep, Keep. SmokingNewton (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page is completely harmless and is a way for editors to blow off steam. There's no reason to delete it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite beliefs to the contrary, the internet shouldn't be all srs bsns. Soxwon (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don't bring a gun to a WP:SNOWball fight^[1] David in DC (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Speedy keep future nominations in the absence of a new good reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to something that makes clearer that it's not a "normal" article - as with the various "essays" that are marked as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural concern

The last deletion discussion, initiated by the same editor, was closed as a "~~speedy~~ keep" on February 27th. This one was filed on February 28th. The three discussions before that were all "Speedy Keeps". Isn't there some rule or guideline or something about that? Like that you gotta read the prior discussions and only nominate again when you've got something new to argue? I'm just sayin' David in DC (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This may not be strictly against the rules (I am uncertain), but it is certainly acting against consensus. SmokingNewton (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nominations by the user. If he does it again, he should be put on ice for awhile. Seriously! Also, don't even think about voting for that guy for admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working with/against this user for some time, and I don't believe he is acting in bad faith. I do, however, believe he acts impulsively and fails to understand Wikipedia's policies, procedures, and traditions before taking action. I think this is a good example of such behavior. PDCook (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: sounds like lack of commons sense to me. There is no rule saying you can't – I mean, even if you put up 2 RfAs, people will close it immediately but probably won't block you – but obviously it's lack of commons sense that it will never be deleted. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination done on behalf of User:Immunize.

HMMM. And by the way, it does seem to be a speedy last time. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ US snowball fight gun officer 'totally inappropriate', BBC News, 21 December 2009

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.

[1] US snowball fight gun officer 'totally inappropriate', BBC News, 21 December 2009

[1]