Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Song


 * 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 debate was Keep. VegaDark (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Song
It does not improve the encyclopedia, nor belongs on Wikipedia namespace.  Not hing 4 44  Go Irish! 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe at least one of these songs is used for the WMF telephone system. They're doing no harm. Risker (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have plenty of stuff on Wikipedia namespace that does not directly improve the encyclopedia. Editors do matter.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Biblomaniac15, and because these songs keep the spirit in editing the 'pedia! Even I have a song in the works, but I have to work out the lyrics. And they do somehow improve the encyclopedia, if you catch my drift... BoL (Talk) 02:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is kept going by donations. Those who donate are giving money to the creation of an encyclopedia, not a social network George The Dragon (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, but policy explicitly states that we don't need to worry about server space. Furthermore, deleting it will not free up any space, since deleted material remains in the archives. Thus, deleting this page will not mean that Wikipedia requires less maintenance, and therefore will not save the donors any money. WaltonOne 14:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My point isn't about server space. It's about whether donors would really want to contribute to what is, in my view, increasingly becoming a cyber-kindergarten that just happens to have something to do with building an online encyclopedia at times. Though I don't expect this "delete" !vote to make any difference. Though, for the record, if it were my choice (which it never will be!) I'd ban users under 18 and demand full disclosure of real-life identities of all admins as a bare minimum. I'll continue dreaming for now! George The Dragon (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit is becoming less and less free everyday. I think it's already restrictive enough, what with the hostility that ipusers are treated with on a fairly regular basis and the readiness with which most editors will through SOCK and VANDAL around.  Restricting by age is simply inane; there are editors I know under 18 that I think are much more mature than editors that are over 40.  Celarnor Talk to me  15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear, Celarnor. Although most of our vandals consist of schoolchildren (my district's IP has been blocked for the fourth freakin' time!), some under-18s resent that sort of stuff and contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner. Just my $0.02.  21 6 55  ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 15:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey! Don't forget me :).   CWii ( Talk  01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * George the Dragon, that comment is just being discriminatory. I happen to be 17 years old, but I'm a freshman in college who has contributed almost 2000 edits, cleaned up quite a few articles, and only made constructive edits to Wikipedia (beyond a few to my userpage).  And even younger people than that make constructive edits every day, some probably doing more than I can.  You're willing to throw out all that improvement just to prevent some vandalism?  We have tools and editors for that.  All I'm saying is reconsider your words.  Red Phoenix  (Talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It improves Wikipedia by creating a sense of community among editors; especially useful for those of us who spend days on  end at odds with each other at XfDs.  Celarnor Talk to me  03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - A little confused with this nomination Nothing444 you have a song up on the page but you suggest the whole item should be deleted? Curious - explanation please?-- VS  talk 05:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Between this and the MfD pertaining to Best Vandalism Lists, I'm starting to think few people around here appreciate WP:HUMOUR....  21 6 55  ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 12:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, and apply WP:TROUT to the nominator. :) These songs aren't harming anyone, and help the project by making useful points in an original way, sustaining a sense of community, and just keeping people amused. I can honestly say that reading these songs makes me more inclined to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Terraxos (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments above and per my reasoning in the essay Editors matter. WaltonOne 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's just a bit of harmless fun, and I think Wikipedia needs a little bit of humor now and then. As long as we leave up the  tag, I don't see what's wrong with it.  Why do you think we kept WP:SPIDER so many times? (It was nominated twice at MFD, and kept both times.)  Red Phoenix  (Talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a little bit of fun never hurts anyone. Maybe we can have "Wikipedia: The Musical" :)-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a little humor never hurt anyone. It certainly isn't hindering our ability to write an encyclopedia. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stomping out the little things that help make editing fun (and/or bearable) and build a sense of community doesn't really improve the encyclopedia, either. Walton has a marvellous title for that essay of his - editors matter. --Kiz o r  23:48, 13 April 2008 (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.