Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AtionSong/World's Longest Poem (second nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was no consensus, 16 delete, 14 keep with 7 suggestions to transwiki and 3 suggestions to move. I must say that transwiki or moving this into the Sandbox would be the best idea here as this does not belong on Wikipedia, even in a user page. Personally, I think this issue merits further discussion, and a no consensus result is not an endorsement by any means. Please do not use a no consensus result as an argument to keep in the future. —Cuivi é nen 23:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:AtionSong/World's Longest Poem (second nomination)
Also see the first nomination.

See similar MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Once upon a time... and Articles for deletion/Once upon a time... from 18 months ago.


 * Delete. I renominate this page for deletion because I believe its violation of existing policies is rather egregious and was not given adequate coverage during its last nomination. Specifically, I cite the following:
 * The WP:NOT policy states, "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published." Point two of that subsection specifically forbids "original inventions"; point three forbids "[p]ersonal essays or [b]logs" (cite).
 * Later, that policy also states "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" (cite).
 * That policy also states "[Y]our user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion" (cite).
 * The WP:USER guideline states, "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia," and then goes on to state unrelated content includes:
 * "[e]xtensive discussion not related to Wikipedia"
 * "[o]ther non-encyclopedic material"
 * "[g]ames, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to 'entertainment' rather than 'writing an encyclopedia'"
 * "[c]ommunications with people uninvolved with the project or related work"
 * Because of the violation of the above policies and established guidelines, I strongly urge this article user subpage's deletion. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 19:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Addition: Some rudimentary calculations outlined in a comment below indicates that the article up for MfD has the ability to consume, if carried to completion, approximately five (continuous, 24/7) months' worth of editing that could instead be devoted towards what Wikipedia is truly supposed to be about: building an encyclopedia. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this nomination. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 16:42, 1 December 2006 (CST)
 * Clarification: I have withdrawn this nomination &mdash; reasons stated here. However, precedent is evidently unclear as to whether after a discussion has progressed at such length, the nominator's withdrawal closes the discussion.  Policy village pump discussion here, Google search here.  I withdraw the nomination and my active participation in this discussion but leave others to take whatever actions they see fit, with malice towards none. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 00:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing a nomination ends the discussion only when nobody else reccommends deletion, which is not the case here. -Amarkov blahedits 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to note that the nomination was withdrawn when several people became concerned about Whedonette's very low edit ocunt in the article namespace for someone so anti-stuff that prevents people editing, especially considering her in depth knowledge of Wikipedia policy... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm really getting sick and tired of the ad hominem attacks and innuendo regarding Whedonette. If you want to make a claim of sockpuppetry as you have, that's fine, but until you have something more substantial to back up your position, your continued reference to this and assumption of bad faith for Whedonette's actions amounts to a personal attack.  Please stop now. —Doug Bell talk 12:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed The point has been made and is probably not germaine. Let's move on.16:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  16:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Per User:Elkman below, "Supposedly, this poem would take up to 3,715 hours to complete ... There appears to be a concern about editor productivity being lost to this poem ... If spending a few minutes per day to add to a pointlessly long poem is a waste of time, how much more of a waste of time is it for someone to leave the computer for a weekend [ie. holiday] and do something other than Wikipedia editing?" Yuser31415 @ ? 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no policy against editors taking time off to do whatever they like. Obviously.  It does have policies about what its own resources can be used for, as quoted in the original nomination. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you've killed your own argument that Wikipedians are "wasting their time on a doomed project". You've just stated Wikipedians can do whatever they like with their time, which is true. Your only argument left is that the page violates policy. Yuser31415 @ ? 01:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The straw man argument you and Elkman are mounting attempts to link time spent doing things external to Wikipedia with time spent writing the poem. The flaw in that is that time spent writing the poem is not being taken from time that would have otherwise been spent outside of Wikipedia, doing scuba diving and such; the time spent writing the poem is being taken from time that would have otherwise been spent doing things on Wikipedia, such as contributing to article namespace, that would have had a beneficial effect towards the goal of writing an encyclopedia. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 01:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - please remember WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. It is also good ettiquette to notify the user in question on their talk page. Thank you. Yuser31415 @ ? 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The WP:IAR policy you linked to states, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." I very obviously don't think that this page improves or maintains Wikipedia.  The snowball clause you linked to states, "If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process."  I don't think this applies here; the former discussion arrived at no consensus.  Finally, I will notify the user in question now.  Thanks. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please realize that just because everything in policy says this page should go, it is not deterring any users from editing. In fact this MfD is taking up people's time more than the poem. If people don't like the poem, they don't need to have anything to do with it. It is not being disruptive, it is merely a Wikipedia user's collaborative project. However, I do think it would be better off in a subpage of the Sandbox - for example, "Wikipedia:Sandbox/World's longest poem". Yuser31415 @ ? 00:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact this MfD is taking up people's time more than the poem. Looking at the talk page, the truth of that statement is rather doubtful.  Plus, here's some idle calculations.  The page states 5,974 words in 701 lines.  That's an average of 8.52 words per line.  Divide that by your goal of 1.9 million, and you have 222,949 lines to write.  Let's say a minute per line &mdash; a conservative estimate given time to come up with the line and then the time spent to edit it.  That's 222,949 minutes = 3,715 hours = 154 days = 5 months.  So we're talking an extremely conservative estimate of 5 continuous months of editing, with no stop for sleep or food, of editing time spent to create this project.  Even dividing the manpower among, say, five editors yields a continuous month's worth of five editors' editing lost to a nonsense project. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Strong keep - while this 'poem' clearly doesn't benefit the encyclopedia, it doesn't hurt it either. Per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW I suggest putting this page into a subpage of the Sandbox. Yuser31415 @ ? 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Per above, I'm not really sure this user understands the purposes of either WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, or, for that matter, what the purpose of the Sandbox is supposed to be. I'd merely ask the reviewing admin to take that into account when examining said user's vote (yes, I know MfD isn't a vote) . &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not make personal attacks. You are insulting my judgement of how I understand the two policies. Thank you. Yuser31415 @ ? 00:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read up on what things Wikipedia policy explicitly states are not personal attacks. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons I nominated this the first time. I think it was a flawed decision to have kept it the first time (not the closing admin's, but rather the majority of the keep !votes rationale), although I think it would have been preferrable to wait a little longer before renominating it. --Doug Bell talk 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- Interesting, perhaps, but not of any encyclopedic value. I'd also like to echo some of the above comments in saying that I can't see how WP:IAR or WP:SNOW relate to this issue.--Fyre2387 (talk * contribs) 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Alright, once again, I am biased, because this is my project, but may I direct your attention to Department of Fun, please. This is no different than any of those pages, except I created it as a user subpage instead of a project page (although, I would note, some pages are also user subpages 1, 2). This page is no different than any of those. If it's the userpage thing that's bothering people, then this can be moved to a project page like the other Department of Fun pages. Why is this any different than the other Department of Fun pages? -AtionSong 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly support, and strenuously argue in favor of, an MfD attempting to delete Department of Fun, because it has the precise same problems as this does. But it doesn't follow to say "hey, Article X violates all these policies, so Article Y should be allowed to, too!". &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 23:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But there's a difference between voting to take down a wall and voting to take out a brick. -AtionSong 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But a wall does not come down without the removal of bricks. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A wall does not come down without a public outcry. Yuser31415 @ ? 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And pigeons perch on a wall and go "coo coo coo." Exactly how far do you want to go with this metaphor?  In the above analogy, the brick would be the poem, and the wall would be the entire Department of Fun.  Whether the entire Department of Fun would come down with or without a public outcry is really not a question being discussed on this page. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The argument I'm about to give holds no water usually, but for user subpages, it is appropriate. Is it hurting anything? -Amarkov blahedits 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is hurting anything. Look at the amount of people involved in it, and how deeply they're involved in it.  This is not an idle endeavour for these editors. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not hurting anything. You argue that it ties up valuable editors and editing time; I counter, ho w do you know any editors at all would go the the articles if this page is deleted? It is more likely, in my opinion, that they would go to other Dept. of Fun projects or off WP altogether. If there is no fun to be had on WP, then the edit counts would drop dramatically from editors leaving. Al  e  thiophile 1   2  3  20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If an editor doesn't enjoy the work associated with writing on any one of the sheer universe of topics that the 1.5 million articles in Wikipedia articlespace cover, and thus derives a sense of fun only out of contributing to Department of Fun projects, then I daresay Wikipedia is not the most optimal environment from which they can be deriving their fun. In any case, if an editor active in the poem goes to another Department of Fun project, it will hopefully be one much more finite in length, without quite so much potential for becoming such a massive sink of manpower.  If an editor active in the poem leaves Wikipedia altogether, that is his or her decision, of course, but such a decision would reflect on the departing editor's sense of priorities.  If a 1.9-million-word poem was the most important thing to them on Wikipedia, then, again, in such a case Wikipedia might not have been the most optimal environment from which said departing editor could have been deriving their fun. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per well-argued nomination. I fail to see how this is anything other than entertainment and how this is related to Wikipedia. To Amarkov, a page exclusively for non-Wikipedia related conversation "doesn't hurt" either, but well we have had one such page deleted not too long ago. Kimchi.sg 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't in userspace either. I do realize that WP:NOT supports deleting this. -Amarkov blahedits 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The deletion of this page seems to be more contested than that of the Esperanza coffee lounge, which was not contested at all. Yuser31415 @ ? 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I pointed out the Coffee lounge MfD is that IMO these pages are being used for similar purposes - text unrelated to Wikipedia. The fact one is contested and the other not doesn't matter. Kimchi.sg 03:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I'm put off by the fact it was relisted again in a matter of weeks. If this result is keep, will you relsit it again? And again? And again after that too? The tribe has spoken, let it be for a while. So I was going to vote delete, but because the nominator's sheer despise for this page forces him to relist it only a few weeks later, I'm hesistant to vote in favour of deletion. This I feel, is an abuse of the proccess - simply relist it again & again if you don't get your way. This page isn't really hurting anything. Spawn Man 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi SpawnMan, I just wanted to point out to you that Whedonette is a she (not him) :). Yuser31415 @ ? 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies monsieur! (Hopefully that means miss in Arabic!) Spawn Man 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that I'm not the one who originally nominated it. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki, such a project, if formulated right, could be transformed into a poetry learning project over at wikiversity. I'm always on the lookout to see if I can find stuff like this to move over.--Rayc 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikiversity. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yuser31415 Yao Ziyuan 13:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, see, the problem with this is that neither you nor Yuser31415 have actually provided supportive policy for your keep votes, and MfDs aren't a strict up-or-down numerical vote. Neither WP:IAR nor WP:SNOW actually provide any support for the keep position. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 16:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No policy says it should stay there. Your arguments, I believe, are correct. However, policy is not everything. A policy is a guideline, and policies like WP:USER are reasonably flexible. You've already had an ANI for overciting policy. Sure, the page is in the wrong place, but that doesn't mean it should go. I think it would be better either moved to Wikiversity, or moved to a subpage of the Sandbox, like several other similiar projects. The page I would suggest would be Sandbox/World's longest poem. How about it, folks? Yuser31415 @ ? 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A policy is not a guideline. Although WP:USER is a guideline (an "actionable" page "authorized by consensus" that can be "treated with ... the occasional exception"), the policies quoted above are "less likely to have exceptions," and rarely do, and they forbid this kind of user subpage.  As for bringing up the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, an ad hominem argument doesn't support your case any. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 18:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per Rayc. This does not belong on Wikipedia, even in the userspace.  That said, I'd hate to see the work be deleted outright.--Isotope23 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, unlike Esperanza, this is kept in userspace, promotes harmonious editing and collaboration, and creates a Wikipedian culture to which anyone can contribute. If someone wants to delete the Department of Fun, I'd vote delete, but you'll ahve a problem given Jimbo's a member... 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk * contribs).
 * Kindly back up the rather pleasantly phrased sound bites of "promotes harmonious editing and collaboration" and "creates a Wikipedian culture to which anyone can contribute" with proof as to same. And, for that matter, I have yet to hear one person's defense as to how said page isn't a massively flagrant violation of multiple Wikipedia policies ... aside from the WP:IAR catchall, which really doesn't apply as this isn't a project whose intent is to improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you back off and chill out? Where the hell were you when Esperanza was being MfDed? I am totally for deleting all and any unnecessary Wikipedian projects, including Esperanza, Concordia, and the Department of Fun, but I fail to see how a collaborative project merits deletion. You have to both use good editing skills and prose composition to create a line, and you have to work together with other editors to make it a decent poem. I do not see how this detracts from editing the encyclopedia. In addition, the poem is sortof about Wikipedian history, so it not only teaches new editors what has already happened here, but it creates community. Editing community cohesion is good. You need to severely calm down. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you back off and chill out? Where the hell ...  I can definitely see now how it promotes harmonious editing! :-) &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa now, I'm not sure Whedonette is the one needing to chill out here. Whedonette asked a perfectly reasonable question regarding the issue and I don't think you needed to bite her head off for asking.  As to your claims that good editing skills and prose are required to create a line in the poem...well, that seems a bit of a stretch, especially as a rationale to keep the poem.  I think ability to write a poem is not particularly relevant to creating good encyclopedic articles and that any editing skills necessary are better honed contributing, but YMMV. --Doug Bell talk 17:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I consider aggressively demanding "Kindly back up the rather pleasantly phrased sound bites" of someone who had made a single comment overly hyped up. I have never edited the poem, and do not intend to, but I have no problem with other people doing so, and do not understand why Whedonette has taken such a harsh dislike to it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the problem: you tell us that the poem "promotes harmonious editing and collaboration" and "creates a Wikipedian culture to which anyone can contribute." To me, those are pleasantly phrased sound bites.  Until you began blasting at me, after the "what the hell" stuff, that "[y]ou have to both use good editing skills and prose composition to create a line" and "you have to work together with other editors to make it a decent poem," all that we were given in support of your keep vote were rather prettily phrased nouns and verbs.  And although a porn actress knows how to assume the role of a character and how to be aware of where the camera is, I wouldn't call her ready to play Ophelia in Hamlet.  Similarly, the supposedly "good editing skills" and "prose composition" 'skills' required to write a goofy limerick aren't very translatable to writing Wikipedia articles (and, BTW, prose != poetry &mdash; "literary medium distinguished from poetry" ).  That was a weak argument ... at best. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My vote stands. Harrassing me isn't going to change it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My intention was never to change your vote; that obviously wasn't going to happen. Merely to point out the flaws in your reasoning and statements for when the closing admin reviews this document.  And if you find differing viewpoints and critical analysis of your opinion to be "harrassing," you are in a strange locale. "Halp! Halp! I'm being harrassed!" &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look Whedonette, that's not the point. Apart from policy, why do you feel the page should be deleted? If you don't like it, don't go near it. If someone wants to spend their time on a harmless project, let them. What do you have against these people or their project? It's just a Department of Fun poem, and surely one poem isn't going to hurt 1,506,611 whole Wikipedia articles? It's peoples' choice. If they wish to spend their time on this, then let them do so, although if it could be changed to become more educational that would be great. Yuser31415 @ ? 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apart from policy? Policy is the cornerstone of this encyclopedic work. Process and policy (and guidelines) prevent this place from becoming chaos.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Policy isn't something that should be set aside in this argument. To illustrate by exaggeration: "Listen, aside from the fact that I ax-murdered your husband, what do you have against me?"  The core issue is policy.  But to answer your question nonetheless, essentially, I believe that the page should be deleted for the feelings and reasonings that originally, presumably, inspired the policies and guidelines cited: the overriding purpose of this website is to build an encyclopedia, and things that subtract, slow down, and take away from that purpose do not have a place here.  This poem is a frivolous and yet very huge energy suck, and, as the calculations show, would conservatively take a good 3,715 manhours of editing.  That makes this project quite different than games of chess or checkers which were, in and of themselves, deleted when Esperanza's Coffee Lounge was.  If those were considered timewasters and deleted, this meets that same standard of timewasting and multiplies it by a factor of a few thousand.  Further, since the "people" do not own the Wikimedia servers, it is not the "people"'s choice &mdash; it is the Wikimedia Foundation's choice, as outlined in the policies and guidelines formulated by those who actually wish to compose an encyclopedia. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki somewhere, no idea where. It would be a shame to lose the info here, but it isn't relevant to Wikipedia. --ais523 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - or maybe send to Wikia?. WP:NOT a place for social networking. Silly and distracting. Moreschi 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Moreschi! Could you give me an example of how it's destracting? Cheers! Yuser31415 @ ? 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be far better if editors spent their writing talents actually improving the encyclopaedia for a change, rather than time-wasting on this nonsense. Quite apart from the multitude of policies this thing violates. Moreschi 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, but just deleting a page is not going to stop them from wasting time. All it's going to do is induce bitterness on the part of the editors who've spent such a long time on it. Nobody would sign up if we said they had to have a fixed template on their page that didn't violate any policies. To an extent, a user subpage is a user page and people can put what they like on it, as long as they don't get excessive. Yuser31415 @ ? 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If they wish to waste their time, they can do so on an external website - just not on Wikipedia, where it distracts other users from editing the encyclopaedia. And no, actually, per WP:USER you can't put basically whatever you like in your userspace. There are rules and they should be respected. What is more, I think I have stated my views on this at quite an adequate length, and I'm afraid I have better things to do with my life than bicker all day and night at this MfD - like actually write some articles! Moreschi 20:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * a user subpage is a user page and people can put what they like on it, as long as they don't get excessive. Here's the problem with that statement: you don't own your userpage.  That's outlined both by policy and guideline (which I cited in my second nomination).  Therefore, no, people can't put what they like on it.  And, seperately, if you don't consider a 1.9-million-word poem "excessive," I marvel to wonder what the scope of something you might find excessive would be. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A 1.9 million word poem is excessive, but it shows no sign of getting that large. Yuser31415 @ ? 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you find the page's stated goal to be excessive, and furthermore believe that the editors will not reach their stated goal. Illuminating. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So if the editors wish to waste their time on an already doomed project, why not let them? Yuser31415 @ ? 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because (a) that's not what Wikipedia or its resources are for; (b) it's not a useful project, it's frivolous and useless entertainment that won't even &mdash; as you admit &mdash; succeed at its intended purpose; and (c) they could be contributing manhours towards articles and useful environments that have little or no chance of being "doomed." &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 21:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * B. and C. are irrelevant as they apply to the editors in question; A. is the most important. May I alert you to Don't_worry_about_performance. I do think it should be in a subpage of the sandbox, but nobody seems to be listening. Why should this page be nominated for deletion when the Department of Fun isn't? That seems silly to me. And the Department of Fun is an established group, as far as I know. Yuser31415 @ ? 21:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With regards to your counterargument to point (a), your cite of the intended page does not support your cause, as the page's stated caveat starts off by saying, "When making some improvement to Wikipedia's content ... " This is very obviously not an improvement of Wikipedia's content.  Therefore, point (a) stands.  With regards to your dismissal of (b) and (c) as irrelevant, you write off the very underlying arguments of the policies and guidelines that were cited above and forbid such entertainment-only subpages as the poem in question.  Wikipedia is not a free webhost.  It is not a place for social networking.  It is not a place to do fun little entertaining projects.  It is an online encyclopedia.  Free webhosts, social networking, and fun little entertaining projects are, in and of themselves, not unworthy things; they deserve homes.  This is not the place for same. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per well detailed nomination; this page is a failure of WP:NOT and WP:USER--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in agreement with the nomination and WP:USER and WP:NOT. Barno 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the page in question could be moved to a subpage of the Sandbox, ie. Sandbox/World's longest poem. Yuser31415 @ ? 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even stripping away the userpage-specific policy cites from the nomination above, Wikipedia is "not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published," nor is it a place for "original inventions," no matter where same is housed. "Wikipedia is not a free wiki host for you to use for your own purposes. It's an encyclopedia. Our primary goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not to provide free web hosting to people. Even if your article isn't taking up much space, you are still misusing Wikipedia and preventing it from becoming a usable encyclopedia."  And the Sandbox "is a Wikipedia namespace page designed for testing and experimentation with the Wiki syntax" &mdash; not as a catch-all for anything forbidden elsewhere on Wikipedia. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, it is in userspace and it doesn't hurt to keep it.__ Seadog ? 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (Changed to Delete)
 * ... despite the Wikipedia userpage policies which explicitly say otherwise ... &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 22:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's getting kinda annoying. I think by now we get that the policies are against it... -Amarkov blahedits 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Department of Fun has been around for over two years on Wikipedia. It is basically a collection of things that "simply take up space, have no encyclopedic value, and take away the time of editors from doing other things" (arguments previously stated in the thread). So far, in two years, nobody has thought that it posed a threatening problem to the Wikipedia community. If it's the user subpage thing that's bothering people, I would be happy to move in to a project page at World's Longest Poem, just like all the other projects in the Department of Fun. -AtionSong 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (a) I think they'd frown on such a proposed move: "The project namespace (prefix Wikipedia:, also called the Wikipedia namespace) is a namespace that provides information about Wikipedia or its sister projects and how to use them." (b) It is a tu quoque logical fallacy, and thus not a valid defense, to state, "Article X, which commits Error A, is allowed to continue; therefore all articles that exhibit Error A should be allowed to continue." (c) This is not about the merits of Department of Fun; it is about the merits of the World's Longest Poem. Perhaps one day someone will nominate the Department of Fun for deletion, and in such a vote, I would both cast my vote for, and strenuously argue for, its deletion.  I would not nominate it for deletion, for the simple fact that there are wikipolitical implications to nominating such a largescale target. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 00:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You do make a good point, so I nominated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Once upon a time... also. --Doug Bell talk 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously delete a project whose explicit goal is to produce 1.9 million words of nonsense. Opabinia regalis 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. When the community considers a page for deletion, the decision is made by policy.  As such, from WP:USER (the section regarding "What can I not have on my user page?"), I quote: Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia."  Srose   (talk)  12:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, just like to add that the transwiki option is still on the table. I hope in the future colaberative projects can be moved over to wikiversity without a deletion debate, just like dic defs or books.--Rayc 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree that the Department of Fun has not been put up at MfD.
 * Yet. Moreschi 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep a)You never give up, do you? That's not a compliment. We just did this a few weeks ago. I voted Keep then, and now I'm doing the same. b)This is not a meaningful MfD. We did this a few weeks ago and received no consensus. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that it will produce any different result. c)WP:IAR states that if a rule is preventing improvement to WP, we should ignore it. d)Your main argument seems to be that it distracts from other editors' time editing articles. Per my comments above, which I will repeat for those who are too lazy to scroll up, we don't know that deleting this will get any editors onto article space. I contribute to articles on a regular basis, ditto with the poem, and I don't find them mutually exclusive, which leads me into e)There is no proof that this is distracting anyone anyway. Al  e  thiophile 1   2  3  20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which "you" you are referring to. I just wanted to point out that WP:IAR has nothing to do with deleting rules.  It has to do with ignoring rules, and not frivolously, but rather when there is a need to ignore rules.  I haven't seen any claim here on this page of a need to ignore the rules. --Doug Bell talk 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The "delete" was a mistake. I meant to type "ignore". Al  e  thiophile 1   2  3  22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this commentary was directed to me, so I would make the following observations in response to your vote. (a) I note that I am not the individual who nominated this the first time.  That would be Mr. Bell.  This being my first attempt, this isn't a question of "never giving up."  Furthermore, I would request that you not insult your fellow editors and make your arguments civilly.  (b) The closing administrator, when making a decision, should assess consensus not in a straight up-or-down count but based on the weight of the arguments presented on each side.  In my own opinion, those believing the article should be kept have not been able to cite policy to support their views, whereas there is an overwhelming amount of policy supporting the position of deleting this article.  (c) Indeed, WP:IAR states, specifically, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them."  I do not think an argument can effectively be made that contributions to a 1.9-million-word poem composed of utter nonsense in any way improves Wikipedia or assists in maintaining it.  Therefore, I don't believe WP:IAR assists your argument.  (d) I replied to this where you laid out your argument above.  (e) Proof that it distracts editors is not required (and, indeed, given that one cannot read minds, is an unfair burden to require) &mdash; the proof that it violates multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines is already present. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Again: WP:IAR. I am not referring to users whose only priority on WP is this poem; I am referring to users--like me--who are under a substantial amount of stress and would probably leave if they didn't have at least one way to simply have fun. Wikipedia, or another wiki, is the only way that a project such as this could be carried out. Free wikis such as PBWiki are not a good option--they are significantly disadvantaged in usability. Therefore, this page must be on wikipedia for it to have any real meaning. And anyway, your main arguments are thus:
 * It violates policy, and;
 * It distracts editors.
 * WP:IAR takes care of the first point; my already-stated arguments take care of the second. In my view, you don't have a case. Also, I'm sorry I was uncivil about "never giving up"; that was mean-spirited. My arguments stand, however. Al  e  thiophile 1   2  3  22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with any of the premises in your statement: I do not believe that this poem improves Wikipedia or assists in its maintenance, and therefore, WP:IAR would not be an acceptable argument in defense of keeping it. Additionally, I do not believe that Wikipedia is the only acceptable venue in which this poem can be constructed.  Finally, I am sincerely sorry that you find yourself under a substantial amount of stress.  However, Wikipedia as an institution should not be responsible for providing for the relief of its editors' stress, given that there are a plethora of venues and ways in which an editor can relax themselves, whether it is reading a book, watching a television show, playing an online game, engaging in a sport, or what have you. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Random section break 1

 * Comment: Whedonette's contributions show nothing but two months of nominating various items for MfD - aside from wondering why this champion of the Wiki never actually edits in the article namespace herself, I cannot help but wonder where this phenomenal grasp of Wikipolicy came from, given this person signed up and immediately leapt in Mfding? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, and thus offers no real defense as to the topic currently being discussed. Attacking the person instead of the argument is what's soured a lot of people on politics; I find it equally as distasteful here. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it distasteful that you insist on arguing with every person who has voted keep, but whatever. I find it somewhat interesting that you decided to sneer at my comment rather than deny my implicit accusation of sockpuppetry. I'm going to see if tehre are any blocked users known for deletionism. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was asked that question directly by another person on my talk page, and answered it there. I honestly don't think it's relevant to this discussion &mdash; or, for that matter, that I should be indulging your discourtesy &mdash; but, no, this is the only name I edit Wikipedia under.  But a sockpuppet would say the precise same thing, so there's no real way to satisfactorily answer that charge, is there?  No one would ever say, "Yes, I'm a sockpuppet."  So a "no" answer can either be treated with belief or disbelief. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say that an ad hominem attack here is only going to undermine the strength of your other statements. Please be civil and stay focused on the subject of this page. --Doug Bell talk 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing here. I am expressing concern that this apparent all-knowing deletionist hasn't any real edits. If that's an ad hominem attack then you're a mushroom. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remain calm and do not make personal attacks (calling other a mushroom). Doug, Dev has a point. If Whedonette has gained her knowledge of policies by editing under a sockpuppet account before creating this one, sockpuppet vote stacking is serious offense. Yuser31415 @ ? 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that the mushroom accusation was brought with the conditional of me making a personal attack, and I was not making a personal attack, I wasn't actually calling Doug a mushroom. However, I have gone further into Whedonette's background and she has 109 edits, three of which are in the main namespace and 65 of which are nominating and defending MfDs. There's something funny going on here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See . Yuser31415 @ ? 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is pointless road to head down. An anonymous IP can nominate an article for deletion, and that doesn't undermine the merits that such a deletion may have.  Please stay focused on the discussion here, otherwise I might assume that you  are implying that my  previous nomination was funny also. --Doug Bell talk 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "This is pointless road to head down." That depends on whether this continues as simply a discussion on the merits of Whedonette or whether there is the possibility of sock puppeting going on. -AtionSong 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is a legitimate suspicion of sockpuppetry then it would be best to confront that head on, as Yuser31415 did, otherwise I suggest that continuing with innuendo would be bad faith and possible incivility. Since nobody has said who the suspected sockpuppeteer is, I'm not sure I understand your point.  If you suspect actual sockpuppetry, then may I suggest you take it to WP:SSP. --Doug Bell talk 02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) &mdash; "on the merits of Whedonette or whether there is the possibility of sock puppeting going on". What a delightfully revealing Freudian slip &mdash; evidently in Ationsong's mind, it's either a discussion about me ... or a discussion about me! &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ''"...evidently in Ationsong's mind, it's either a discussion about me ... or a discussion about me!" That's not what I was trying to say at all. I agree that yes, there is no point in arguing on the merits of an articles nominator whatsoever, unless there is suspicion that they are a sockpuppet, which I was not accusing you of. The comment was not directed at you, it was directed at the discussion. -AtionSong 02:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Stopping your not-so-gentle sarcasm might encourage others to be civil. I have never said you were a sockpuppet. Would you like a Checkuser to be carried out to remove all suspicion? Yuser31415 @ ? 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * *gentle smile* So in the midst of multiple ad hominem attacks, the civility or incivility of those making those attacks is now somehow my responsibility? My appreciation of the surreal and absurd is helping me deal with this in good humor.  An editor's choice of whether to adopt a civil tone is theirs and theirs alone, Yuser.  As for sockpuppet allegations, that was indeed just a typo &mdash; your mention of sockpuppetry came in the form of an interrogatory, not a declaration. As for bringing up this Checkuser thing, that presupposes (a) my guilt and (b) the idea that the allegations are relevant to this discussion.  As I agree to neither of these suppositions, I would not initiate nor assent to such a request &mdash; although it appears to me that you need neither my assent nor my initiation.  Plus, who am I supposed to be a sock puppet of? &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 02:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem is, quite simply, attacking the person instead of the argument he or she is putting forth. That's precisely what you're doing. &mdash; Whedonette, the sneering all-knowing deletionist, who of course might be mistaken about the personal attack thing (ping) 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you're being sarcastic again. Although you seem to have a problem with Dev making alleged personal attacks against you, you obviously have no problem with certain ad hominem attacks made against me BY DELETIONISTS responding to my Keep votes in prominent MfDs:"Furthermore, Alethiophile, and you should know this,""I suggest you reconsider your priorities" Al  e  thiophile 1   2  3  22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not going to take people to task for arguing for the same position I am. Second, if you employ ad hominem attacks, you are not in a good position to complain about receiving them. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not employed any ad hominem attacks. You are trying to categorize everyone who disagrees with your position as someone who uses ad hominem attacks, and thus, by implication, someone who cannot back up their argument by any other means. Furthermore, it is completely reasonable to investigate the person who is nominating anything, including RfA, MfD, AfD, RfC and anything else. If there is a suspicion that the nominator is either not working in good faith or is not experienced enough in actual article space edits to know what is worth deleting, doubly so--and if there is suspicion that the nominator is a sockpuppet of something, triply so. I am not making any accusations, I am simply defending the idea that people need investigating, as well as pages. Al  e  thiophile 1   2  3  21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: For those arguing that the poem is a waste of server space, this page is now larger than the poem itself, making the nomination for deletion more of a strain on the server than the article. -AtionSong 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we better delete it quick so we don't have to go through this again. :-) Actually, the issue is not space, it is on drawing a line on which activities belong here and which don't.  This discuss here will not only decide the fate of this page, but also serves as a forum for users to express their views on where the line should be drawn. --Doug Bell talk 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is why I'm arguing that there is a sister project that this would be perfect for. As for the wikilayering, WP:IAR is for things that help the encyclopedia but go against rules, WP:SNOW is for debates that are so one sided, that it's predetermined. --Rayc 00:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Pray tell, why are you lecturing me about WP:IAR and WP:SNOW? I've not invoked those in the argument, or were those comments directed elsewhere? --Doug Bell talk 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Yuser31415, I just got lost in all this talk.--Rayc 01:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding editor productivity: Supposedly, this poem would take up to 3,715 editor-hours (or five editor-months) to complete. There appears to be a concern about editor productivity being lost to this poem.  Is there an expected standard of productivity for editors, or some expectation that Wikipedia editors put a certain amount of time into editing?  As an example, I spent a weekend last month at Wazee Lake near Black River Falls, Wisconsin, doing some scuba diving.  Instead of working on articles like Antoine Auguelle, Ard Godfrey or Battle of Birch Coulee, I was instead experiencing problems with buoyancy and blowing O-rings.  I lost some 56 hours or so of Wikipedia editing time in that weekend, with nothing but an Advanced Open Water Diver certification to show for it.  If spending a few minutes per day to add to a pointlessly long poem is a waste of time, how much more of a waste of time is it for someone to leave the computer for a weekend and do something other than Wikipedia editing?  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there an expected standard of productivity for editors, or some expectation that Wikipedia editors put a certain amount of time into editing? No, there's not. Very nice straw man setup. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, it might help your case if you weren't sarcastic to every single person who says to keep... -Amarkov blahedits 02:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wasn't voting, per se. I was wondering if there's a standard for productivity for editors, since the subject has come up before.  (It came up in the MfD for Esperanza and all its subpages, for example.)  Since the argument has come up before, saying "Editors are wasting time on this instead of creating the encyclopedia," I'm looking at this for a test case to determine if we need to quantify how much time editors should spend on Wikipedia as a whole, or some sort of time balance between editing articles, editing silly poems, hanging out in a virtual coffee lounge, or arguing over MfDs.  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Editor productivity standards? I'm sorry, but are you really serious? -Amarkov blahedits 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Transwiki. Poem doesn't really belong on an encyclopedia, but may be a worthy Wiki project elsewhere. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would like to again lay down the evidence why this page should be kept or transwikied.
 * Evidence that the World's Longest Poem should be kept
 * In no way does the article harm Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project.
 * The project is in userspace, is active, and nonintrusive.
 * The poem is related to Wikipedia, in the form of a poetic history of Wikipedia.
 * "If it ain't broke don't fix it." I would translate this to, "If it ain't harming Wikipedia don't delete it."
 * Best regards,
 * Yuser31415 @ ? 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Best regards,
 * Yuser31415 @ ? 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yuser31415 @ ? 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or transwiki Irrelevant to building an encyclopedia. JChap2007 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (Relisted comment removed by Amarkov.) I'll pretend I didn't read any of the above aside from Whedonette's opening statement. It was nominated as violating multiple components of WP:NOT and WP:USER. WP:USER is rarely utilized to delete the userpages of members in good standing. Unfortunately, neither the author (AtionSong) nor the nominator (Whedonette) can be classified in the good standing category. Point stands. The citing of WP:USER fits. The citing of WP:NOT is rather tortured. Personally, I think the page is a ridiculous waste of time, that the arguments are spurious to the point of hysterical equine necrobrutality and that Whedonette is almost certainly a sockpuppet or at least a rabblerouser intent on using deletions to make a point....but sadly, Whedonette is correct, and it is completely hypocritical for me to vote anything but delete simply due to my dislike for this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaragirl (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Fails WP:USER. If I say anything more I'll say something rude, so I'll just stick to that. riana_dzasta 03:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There's nothing wrong with working on a 9000000000???-word poem during your spare time in between editing articles. The poem is a work in progress, and Wikipedia might actually become famous on Guinness World Records for making the longest poem!!!-- E d  ¿Cómo estás? 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to interpret your tone, Ed, are you being sarcastic? Wouldn't you rather Wikipedia became well-known for being a good encyclopedia? A few editors working on this have edits primarily to this page. That's a bit worrying, I think. riana_dzasta 04:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not sarcasm. I seriously vote keep. I'm surprised many editors are working on the poem, to tell you the truth. I regarded the project as something to work on when I needed to take a break from an article. (It always helps me to switch my tasks every 30 minutes). Besides, writing a poem can improve your composition.-- E d  ¿Cómo estás? 04:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding politely (that's in short supply on this page). True, it may not be a problem for you and many others, who are able to balance themselves well. But a few seem unable to do so. riana_dzasta 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * =P I've made it a point to emphasize kindness here on Wikipedia. (see User:Ed/Kindness). Anyway, if it's for the greater good for the other editors, then I might be inclined to vote delete. But for now, I'm going more Neutral. A lot of interesting points are coming up here.-- E d  ¿Cómo estás? 04:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki or weak keep as long as the owner has copied it to his computer (if it gets deleted, which it loogs like may happen). &mdash;  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 05:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This page is in violation of a number of policies. Wikipedia is here for writing an encyclopedia. This page seems to me to have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. The stress relief argument has never held any water for me. It's not as though when you are editing Wikipedia you are unable to access the rest of the internet. It's perfectly easy for an editor to work on an article for a while, get stressed out, go to another website and play some pong, de-stress, and chill, and then come back to Wikipedia. WP's focus is broad enough, we need to stay focused on what the goal really is. To write an encyclopedia. Not to do whatever the heck we feel like as long as it's not in article space. Mak (talk)  05:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, violates policies, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, write this elsewhere. Ter e nce Ong 06:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons given by Doug Bell. --MichaelMaggs 07:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Does not help the encyclopedia. And does violate WP:USERPAGE. I think.__ Seadog ♪ 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've said before, if people are just bugged that this violates Userpage regulations, I'll be happy to move it to a Wikipedia project page, just like everything else in the Department of Fun. When I created it, I just was not being very bold, and only created is as a subpage. But I'll be happy to move it to conform to WP standards. -AtionSong 22:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not just move it per WP:BOLD? I personally feel it would have a better chance in a subpage of the Sandbox, but it is up to you. Yuser31415 @ ? 22:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * AtionSong, hopefully you can understand that there should be some discretion of what can be included under the department of fun, and that that is the point of this MfD, not whether it exists in user space. The user space arguments are primarily being made as reasons why this should be immune from deletion, and thus there are many counter user space arguments to make the case that user space does not afford some overarching protection for these kinds of pages.  The same will apply in project space regardless of what umbrella (i.e. the Department of Fun) it is placed under. And to Yuser, moving an article under discussion at XfD is considered disruptive.  Don't do it. —Doug Bell talk 22:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The following comment is not intended as an attack or to be sarcastic, it is just a comment: ...that that is the point of this MfD, not whether it exists in user space...The user space argument are primarily being made as reasons why this should be immune from deletion (from directly above) "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia"..."[Y]our user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion"...The WP:USER guideline states, "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia," (from the original nomination). Because about half the nomination for deletion that syou wrote was relating to what should not be on a userpage, I respectfully disagree with your comment that this debate is not over the userspace. -AtionSong 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the second time you seem to be making the same mistake in thinking that I wrote this nomination. Here is the nomination I wrote.  You'll notice the word "user" does not appear in my nomination. —Doug Bell talk 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! My bad. The error is now fixed. However, it still stands, that the argument that this is about userspace policies still stands. -AtionSong 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, not to continue back and forth here until we're indented off the right side of the page, but the nomination starts with a description of WP:NOT: The WP:NOT policy states, "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published." Point two of that subsection specifically forbids "original inventions"; point three forbids "[p]ersonal essays or [b]logs" (cite).  The following discussion of user page policies and guidelines is, as I made the point above, to attack the arguments to keep presented at the first MfD that basically argue that people should be allowed whatever they want to have in user space so long as it's not doing any harm.  So I think my point above is still valid.  You also didn't address the issue of discretion regarding the department of fun.  Is it your view that whatever somebody thinks is fun should be allowed as long as it's not doing any harm?  Because this, I think, is the defining separation in the positions of the keep and delete proponents, not the user space vs. project space issue. —Doug Bell talk 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that I ever said that this is not doing any harm, and I still won't(talk about double negatives!). I also believe that the points you cited from WP:NOT are irrelivant to this situation. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published. This fact links to the original research page, wich basically says that Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. This does not apply to the article in question. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. I believe that this is just saying that all articles need to be about something that is widely considered as significant, not just something that you and your friends created, and somebody else will not know about (such as the term "frindle", which is from a book of the same name, in which a boy renames a pen a frindle). Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. The article in question is neither an essay, nor a blog, and shows no opinions on any topic (except perhaps that vandals are bad).
 * As for if I believe that discretion should be used in the Department of Fun, the idea of the DoF is to create fun side projects for people to participate in when they're not editing. If there was a rush of people who created a bunch of pages that "think are fun", which proceeded to just sit there, taking up space, then I would object to the Department of Fun. However, this is not the case. Even though it has been around for two years, only about 30 pages exists as pages for the Department of Fun, and over half of them are actively edited. Considering that now over 1,500,000 pages are being hosted on the Wikipedia server, 30 pages do not create any extra strain, and removing them will not make it run faster. Secondly, the Department of Fun is not the supposed huge blob of evil that sucks up editors precious editing time. Most of the active pages are edited from every two or three days at the least to five times a day at the most. The DoF is not attempting to compete with the rest of Wikipedia, it is attempting to compliment it, and to give the users a stronger sense of community. -AtionSong 13:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not making the page count argument, but your math is a bit off. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mind Benders—that one page multiplied out to 111.  Pretty sure you're not going to put all 1.9 million words on one page. —Doug Bell talk 14:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was only using the pagecount to show that the DoF is not an all encompassing blob, slowly eating away at the very lining that is Wikipedia. I'm not going to argue about the size of another page. -AtionSong 15:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose you are correct, however, after this MfD, then is there any policy that specifically says AtionSong may not create it in another namespace? Best wishes, Yuser31415 @ ? 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * After is fine, unless the conclusion of this is to delete. Then recreating in project space would be circumventing the decision and would be disruptive. —Doug Bell talk 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I hope everyone knows that Jimbo Wales is a member of the Department of Fun, of which the World's Longest Poem project belongs to. Thanks. Yuser31415 @ ? 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the World's "never gonna be" Longest Poem was added long after Jimbo joined, so I don't see any endorsement value here. —Doug Bell talk 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - harmless fun is semi-private user namespace is perfectly OK. Zocky | picture popups 02:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per zocky Editors seem to be acive. If this diversion helps them edit more productively, sounds good to me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  02:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. Yuser31415 @ ?  mop 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here. Writing poems are one of the ways to improve composition.-- E d  ¿Cómo estás? 03:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As per above, I wrote: I would like to assert that there is supportive policy for this page. WP:USER specifically states, " The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." Best regards, Yuser31415 @ ?  mop 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many &mdash; not all, mind you, but many &mdash; of the contributors do not have edit histories showing much contribution at all to articlespace. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 13:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor do you, might I add. --Deskana talk 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't see how this hurts the process here at Wikipedia or why it has causes such an uproar. If people are really so worried about productive editing, lets stop nominating these kind of things and actually edit articles. Interestingly enough, this discussion is longer (71 kilobytes) than the subpage in question (37 Kilobytes). Keep. -- AuburnPilot talk 04:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It might be fun to start a page specifically dedicated to the World's Longest MfD discussion. (Then again, MfDs are more contentious than the world's longest poem, and poems usually don't cause hard feelings.  So, never mind.)  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, nothing's going to beat the 200k Esperanza discussion for some time, if ever, so I think you're onto a loser there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Esperanza MfD had it's own WP:SHORTCUT. And the talk page was huge too. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. per Auburnpilot. I would also hope that such a keep would change WP culture - by discouraging nominations like this; which have taken more storage than the poem is ever likely to. If it gets above 255K, get back to us. Septentrionalis 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I fear the time spent on this XfD could have been spent on improving the encyclopedia, which ironically is what this deletion page seems to be about. I really don't care about a page like this being in userspace. --Deskana talk 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment After Whedonette has argued above that users spend too much time on the userpage in question, take a look at the user's edit count, which makes it clear that the user hasn't been actively engaging in article editing.-- E d  ¿Cómo estás? 21:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Also, it would probably be good if you  reviewed the contents of this page since this is not the first time this ad hominem attack has been made. —Doug Bell talk 12:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What does my edit count have to do with any of this?-- E d  ¿Cómo estás? 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, you brought up the subject of edit counts as if they meant something here, so you tell me. —Doug Bell talk 23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Errrm ... N e v e r - m i n d Yuser31415 @ ?  #  & 23:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - absolutely NOT what Wikipedia is providing userspace for. Go chase world records somewhere else. -- nae'blis 00:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I consider your statement incorrect. WP:USER says, "... community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia ..." Best regards, Yuser31415 @ ?  clean 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/Move Ever heard of fun? And i think it would work better if it were to be placed in a community thingy.  Definitely keep.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 16:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to sandbox.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/move - There's a lot of discussion here but I don't see how any of it really requires the page to be removed. There's so many things that could be described as distracting editors from editing Wikipedia - but I really think that some people are a bit nervous wading into the deep waters at first and tend to keep to the shallows of Department of Fun, plus these sorts of pages until they feel fully ready to contribute. In the process they meet a heap of other Wikipedians (including more experienced ones), learn how to edit pages properly, some syntactic type things, and whatever. If we're to open this thing up to everybody, we should expect some people learn or adapt at different rates. That being said, I'm not in favour of people who use disruptive (even if well-intentioned) edits to established articles to achieve the same purpose. The poem is harmless, amusing and for that matter survived an earlier XfD. Orderinchaos78 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion really needs to be closed. I'll ask an admin about it. Al  e  thiophile 1   2  <sub style="color:blue;">3  19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.