Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo

 __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. There is a general sentiment that users should not be included in this page if they object to it. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo

 * – (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) 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per discussion in "Planning for 7th Wikipedia movie". Unlike the first two, this appears to be unfunny self-insert fanfic that only has two major authors, and was created years after Wikipedia became a bit more "serious", so jokes involving real people as vandals are a bit less of a good idea.  Go ahead and delete this & the later movies for reasons described in the main MFD.  (Also, this & later ones are in violation of this guideline, but that's obviously not controlling on Wikipedia.).  SnowFire (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Abstain although would ideally prefer page to be rewritten to not include any real vandals to glorify, and remove any real people who object per Rhododendrites. SnowFire (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per my "keep" at the original nomination for this batch. Whether or not it violates HTBFANJS (and, boy howdy, does it): the fact that someone made a joke that we think is stupid doesn't, to me, seem worth destroying it. After all, I'm sure that for any joke you can find a half dozen people who think it is stupid. jp×g 22:01, 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)
 * Weak Keep and Remove names of anyone who objects, because otherwise why should we care about some goofy sandbox page? If this were created by someone WP:NOTHERE (which does happen with this "humor" content sometimes), then I'd probably suggest deleting, but it's just a bit of goofiness in userspace, where one is allowed to be goofy, experiment with wikicode, collect userboxes, be part of the Wikipedia community, etc. as long as you're otherwise here for the right reasons. WP:UP specifically links to Category:Wikipedia games, of course, which has all manner of silly stuff that doesn't really have "educational value", yet some manages to find a home in projectspace. It seems like fine practice not to include the names of users who object and/or banned users who cannot object, and it certainly shouldn't depict anyone in a negative light without proactive consent, but otherwise, what is the deletion rationale for this vs any other "asdfasdf" sandbox? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:28, 27 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.