Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Silly things/Sir Jimmy Wikipedia

 __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:  delete. ✗ plicit  12:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silly things/Sir Jimmy Wikipedia

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

I like humorous pages and have argued for several to be kept. But this isn't humorous, it's just dumb and it was created by sockpuppeteer User:Huff slush7264 who has stated he was a minor when he created his accounts. I really don't think it adds anything positive to the project and I think deleting it would actually make our editors smarter. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not useful. No-one but article creator has contributed to it, and nothing links to it. Tagging garbage such as this with the humorous template should not protect it. The link vandalize (vandalism by a sock of user:My Royal Young) suggests that the creator of Silly things/Sir Jimmy Wikipedia might actually be be the LTA Long-term abuse/My Royal Young. If that were the case this would actually be a speedy WP:G5. Meters (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete As someone who usually finds "dumb things" funny... I do not find this funny. It's just a younger user's attempt at being funny on Wikipedia. This isn't "so dumb it's funny", this is "so dumb it's genuinely dumb". Also agreeing with Meters on this, this has no use. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * People are being excessively harsh on someone's contribution in the style of humorous reflections. If the editor were in good standing, it would be perfectly fine in their userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't of any use to Wikipedia, it isn't a user in good standing, it isn't in userspace, and I don't think that this would be acceptable where it is even if it had been created by a user still in good standing. There was no collaborative editing of this page, and no discussion, let alone a consensus, of this page as something that warranted being preserved. It was instead a unilateral creation of a problematic, and quickly indef'ed, user. As Silly things says, "Things are no longer added to this group of pages on Wikipedia itself (except on rare occasions), but have been moved to another site, and only a few highlights are maintained below. " If you want to argue for keeping this then make your case, but please keep your assumptions and comments about AFD contributors to yourself. Meters (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are being quite rude with your assertions of my assumptions. “Just dumb”, talking “garbage”, and “so dumb it’s genuinely dumb” are quite low on the hierarchy of polite and civil disagreement.
 * A blocked sock violating account, and the page in a poor place, and the author’s lack of known useful contributions anywhere, are facts not in dispute.
 * Calling it a net negative to intellectual progress, is arguable, both ways, but a more intellectual argument is say why, than to attack the tone or name calling (calling writing “dumb” is a thin veneer away from calling the writer dumb).
 * I am not arguing to keep, but the tone of some statements here is disappointing. They amount to personal attacks on someone who is not allowed to respond. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think I was being rude, perhaps you should be a bit clearer in what you mean the next time you comment on editors in an MFD. Sorry, but your comment was not at all clear to me. You did not mention anything about particular comments or language. Instead you said we were being excessively harsh on someone's attempt to be humorous, and added the irrelevancies that it would be acceptable by a user in good standing in their own userspace. I took your comment to mean that you thought it was harsh simply to want to delete this. If you object to my use of "garbage", well, I could have used, say, "blasphemy" instead. And no these are not personal attacks. No-one called the editor dumb or garbage. "Thin veneer" or not, it's well established on Wikipedia that calling an edit "X" is not the personal attack that describing the editor as being "X" would be. Meters (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was brief.  I completely accept your points. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding. Meters (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Personal joke reflections on the project, of no clear value, in the wrong place, by blocked sock account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia benefits from not having this page.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - A bad joke by a blocked joker, and not humorous. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is a link from this to a WP:Meta page that also needs deleting. I know that Meta is a separate space with its own rules.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have nominated Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia for deletion also. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 23 September 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.