Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of Fun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar 6 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Department of Fun

Not part of building an encyclopedia Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 06:23 (UTC)

  • Keep This page represents a legitimate and effective approach to two things essential to a successful encyclopedia: community building and skill development. Tobycat 1 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks like Jaberwocky is the perfect candidate to have a day visit to the Department. Have you seen how many members there are? You should run to the page, or risk being used as the model for a game of "pin the tail on the angry deletionist" :P! Harro5 July 1, 2005 06:49 (UTC)
  • Keep ... but it is part of building a community that builds an encyclopedia. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)
  • Keep - most of the games here are in fact related to encyclopedia-building, those few that aren't should be VfDed individually IMO. Bryan 1 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It helps us build an encyclopedia in the same way that having a break room or rec area helps a company succeed: we need the occasional diversion to keep us going and to prevent wikistress. The concept of fun is central to the identity of WP. It also has very strong community support... even Jimbo Wales is a member! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 08:57 (UTC)
  • Comment I noticed that the nominator, Jaberwocky6669, is also listed as a member of the Department of Fun. He also has it under "Favorite links" at his user page [1]. This would seem to mean that he both supports it and wants to get rid of it. Very strange. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 09:21 (UTC)
    • I know what I'll be doing come next April 1st... Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)
  • Keep I suspect the debate is related to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Checkers Hiding 1 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)
  • Keep - possibly delete nominator for being a partypooper? Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 11:56 (UTC)
  • POssibly delete nominator for being a party pooper. I'm just raising some eyebrows trying to enact some change. Banning me would be like firing someone from a job at the drop of a dime. It creates bad morale! Duh... Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 14:05 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I should have added a smiley? "Deleting a user" is not the same as banning - I was under the impression that there was a section in WP:FUN called "Users for deletion". Grutness...wha? 2 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important community building. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 12:12 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neither is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, but it's widely accepted. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)
  • Keep. ^---- WP:POINT! WP:POINT! hehehe. Project2501a 1 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harumph! MicahMN | Talk 1 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
  • OH I'm SuCH AN IDIOT!!!! Since I nominated this page can I ask for it to be withdrawn?? Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 18:05 (UTC)
  • Delete. No one else will ever agree with me on this, but I really think this (a) is not part of building an encyclopedia and (b) only attracts more of this cruft. See Wikipedia talk:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/WikiSex for an amazing double-VfD on the same grounds (deleted, and then deleted from BJAODN!) and the aforementioned Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Checkers. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unprofessional and inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a toy. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's in the correct namespace, even. humblefool® 1 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)
  • Delete, a pretty unedifying read jamesgibbon 1 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
  • Keep; in order to build an encyclopedia you need a healthy community, and this kind of thing is a big part of it. Antandrus (talk) 1 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
  • Delete as before. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a community to that end. If you want to have fun outside of developing the encyclopedia, please meet up on other servers. Gazpacho 2 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. I agree that community building is part of the wikipedia experience but do we have to resort to using online games to achieve this? JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)
  • Do we want to overwork everyone? Why not have a little fun? KEEP. --Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 2 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)
    • Anyone editing Wikipedia is at a computer connected to the internet. They can easily connect to any game server online and play chess or checkers or whatever they choose, with the added stress relief of being away from Wikipedia. Companies have break rooms because their employees can't take 15 minutes off and drive to the nearest air hockey establishment. Wikipedians can take 15 minutes off and connect to the nearest game server far more easily. If they could do that without taxing Wikipedia's servers, all the better. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)
  • Keep. utcursch | talk July 2, 2005 07:43 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia.--Jyril July 2, 2005 18:13 (UTC)
  • I liken wikigames to the building of the great pyramids. Whole temporary towns were built to house, feed, rest, and entertain the workers. Jaberwocky6669 July 5, 2005 04:28 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

.