Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun


 * 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 speedy keep, bad faith nom, likely sock blocked indef Jaranda wat's sup 18:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Department of Fun
We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia, not a childrens puzzle book. Delete this and all subpages.ThisIsOnlyMe 10:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — ThisIsOnlyMe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. While not taking a position on this request, I'd like to ask the nominator to identify themself.  This request is the only action taken by this user, and given the heated discussions lately on related issues, there are definite sockpuppet and trolling concerns I have with this nomination. —Doug Bell talk 10:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agree with Doug Bell. For something as major a nomination as this (Jimbo Wales is a member of the Department of Fun!) as per precedent at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza, you need a very good, long and detailed reason for asking for deletion of a major project like the Department of Fun. I personally am getting concerned with the nomination of deletion of every single community project on Wikipedia, which at the end of the day can only harm Wikipedia. --tgheretford (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep, because many of the things here are encyclopedically relevant, such as the humorous essays to explicate policies. If there are specific ones that you feel are inappropriate, remove, discuss, and nominate them separately. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, no one said we can not build an encyclopedia and have fun at the same time. -- S onicChao talk 14:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep In addition to the sock puppeting concerns (can we check for this user's IP?), I would like to mention to ThisIsOnlyMe that there are some serious civility issues with somebody who puts in an mfd summary "this is crap". At any rate, a large part of the Wikipedia ideal is to build a community of harmonious editors. This project has been around for two years, and, although there have been a few complaints about various projects, never has there been an outcry for its all out deletion. -AtionSong 15:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, you can request checkuser. Ter e nce Ong 15:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, can't we just have fun here. We can always have fun along the way, what's wrong with this? I don't see any problem. Ter e nce Ong 15:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This seems more like vandalism than a serious nomination. TimVickers 16:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Sorry, can't assume good faith here. The DoF serves a purpose at Wikipedia, albeit a tangental one, and many of it's activities contribute directly to learning about new articles. Furthermore, it does not fail any policies, not even WP:NOT, in toto. Finally, as the center of the humor section, it is somewhat exempted from this kind of mess in the first place. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 17:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - possible bad-faith nomination by a single purpose user of an extremely popular site with no good reason for the proposed deletion given. Badbilltucker 17:12, 3 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.