Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  no consensus defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a very old piece of ancient Wikipedia culture that had a lot of contributors.  As a record of old Wikipedia, it's harmless.  Just leave it be.  SnowFire (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, per my "keep" on the other one, which I'll reproduce here:
 * This is not an article. It is a Wikipedia page. It does not need to establish notability to exist. I will say the same thing every time a joke page is up for deletion: it is not serious, but it is important. Editor retention has been a concern of the community for a long time -- there are many depressing graphs to this effect. Every couple months there will be some doomer writeup in the Signpost, or some grim talk page discussion, about how the editor base continues to shrink. Most people who make accounts do not stick around for more than a few edits, and editors frequently abandon the project never to return. Why? I'm sure there are many reasons. However, having created and/or operated a number of Internet communities over the last couple decades, I will say that morale is probably the most important thing in keeping a place running. People will hang out on a website for years -- decades, even -- if they feel like they belong there, and they have fun when they go there. The website can be stupid, or pointless, or hard to navigate, or filled with assholes, and people will keep coming back if they feel like their contributions to the culture are meaningful and appreciated. If you destroy this, you drive a knife through the heart of posting. Do barnstars improve the encyclopedia? Do FAs improve the encyclopedia? Sure -- we can sit on an ivory tower and say that the only meaningful contributions are to write GAs about obscure river islands or argue about semicolons or make threads on the drama boards. But that does not constitute a community. That is not the stuff that really gets the blood flowing. People like to pal around with their friends. They like to have friends. They like to make goofy little in-jokes with their friends. Surely, if someone spent all of their time giving out barnstars, they wouldn't be improving much. But they exist anyway: because they make the place tolerable to be around.
 * Additionally, this has been on Wikipedia for nearly sixteen years, and doesn't seem to have done gratuitous harm in that time, so I don't know why it would suddenly become an issue now. jp×g 21:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete This clearly constitutes writings [...] not closely related to Wikipedia's goals (quote from User pages), and thus not an acceptable use of userspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:04, 19 November 2021 (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.