Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AtionSong/World's Longest Poem

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 No consensus. (Radiant) 11:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:AtionSong/World's Longest Poem

Unencyclopedic content that does WP:NOT belong here. Besides, if this page ever succeeded in its goal of becoming a 1.9 million word poem, the page size would cause server problems. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:User pages for being "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia". Although the user should have been urged to delete the page himself by nominating it for speedy deletion, with this being used as a last resort. - Tutmosis 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Call me frivolous, but we could still split it up into different subpages. The different sections of WP:NOT do not touch the miscellany in question. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete A wasteful use of wikipedia resources, and not helpful to the project. could be worse, but deleted seems better than kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)
• Delete per Tut and Ikan. This is in no way related to WP whatsoever, it's kind of a waste of space, and as the nom stated, a single web page containing 1.9 million words (which, of course, this poem would never reach, thus making the page completely useless) would crash Deep Blue. -- Kicking222 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unencyclopaedic stuff on subpages violates WP:USER and WP:NOT a webhost for anything else other than an encyclopaedia. Moreschi 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think. Yes, there are WP:USER, and WP:NOT concerns, but also, I wouldn't want anything to be longer than the Mahabharata. It would be wrong, somehow, especially done online. Thε Halo ^Θ 01:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Can't we make something like this on the community portal, where more people will see it. and i don't see anyone dissing the Wikipediholic test, and thats pretty big and pointless.--veon 23:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per WP:IGNORE. What is wrong with this? People seem so convinced that this will never reach 1.9 million words, but that is not necessarily true. If it did reach, than it would be an emblem of Wikipedia's power. A Delete vote based on how it "seems wrong" to have an online poem longer than the Mahabharata is completely and utterly frivolous. Is the Web somehow lower than print media? Bear in mind that without the Web, Wikipedia and anything else like it could not have existed. Although this is not directly an encyclopedia, neither is Esperanza, Concordia, the Are You a Wikipediholic test, and several other (uncontested) "space-wasters" I could name. This is helping to build the community of Wikipedia. Without the community, there is no encyclopedia. Anyway, why delete it? There is no reason to. WP:IGNORE states that if a rule is hindering the building of the encyclopedia, then ignore it. This seems to fit the bill. Alethiophile^{Ask me why} 02:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  First, not that I necessarily have a problem getting rid of the other things you list, at least they are tangentially related to the encyclopedia. Second, if you don't like WP:NOT and WP:USER as reasons to delete, then how about WP:NOR? —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib}

  Yes, agreed with Doug. There is no link between building an encyclopedia and writing a poem. I don't even think the arguement that it builds the community is true. You may have a point if this was wikibooks or wikisource, but really, it doesn't belong. I also don't see anything wrong with having a moral objection against a web project diminishing a work of art. Thε Halo ^Θ 15:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  How does this fall under WP:NOR? It says "to advance a position." This isn't; this is just a project. Also, it would not "diminish" the Mahabharata, there is nothing wrong with the world's longest poem being on the web, and trying to delete this based on the idea that it is immoral to have a Web-based project longer than the Mahabharata is stupid. You are trying to superimpose your moral beliefs on all of us. In my opinion, the thing that "diminishes" the Mahabharata is using it as an argument for the case of rampant deletionists. There is nothing wrong with this page. Alethiophile^{Ask me why} 20:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Well, sorry you feel that way. The way I see it, a poem like this has no place on an encyclopedia. It, in no way I can see, advances the project. My ethical artistic objection is little more than a side note. Again, sorry. Thε Halo ^Θ 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I think a little bit of leniency is in order when the user is active. This user is semi-active(although contributions to article namespace seem a bit... sporadic). Jcam 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  Note: since this page was created on Sept. 22nd and until the comment on this page, AtionSong's edit counts were
  16 edits: 5 to the poem; 6 to article/talk; 5 to user/talk. Going back through June, there were 15 additional edits. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Even though I am biased, as I did start it, I created the page as a project of WikiFun, which is a collection of pages without any encyclopedic value. I don't see why this page is any different, except that I created it as a user subpage. -AtionSong 15:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep: A page or two like this per user is allowed according to the guideline. AtionSong should be able to choose this or User:AtionSong/War Game and delete the other. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 22:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  A page like what is allowed? This is a subproject completely unrelated to the encyclopedia that has more than the single user working on it—I don't see where that is allowed. The other issue is the amount of stuff on the page. I'd have no problem with someone putting a small poem they like, or that they wrote, on their user page or a subpage as part of the moderate amount of personal information that's afforded, but this doesn't fall in that category either. This should go. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - Yes I have contributed quite a lot to the poem of Roy & Willy, but now it's quite gotten very silly. We'll never reach the end of our cause, so keeping this article gives me some pause. Good while it lasted and all that said, but really we must put this page to bed... Cherry-o! Spawn Man 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there are other hosting services out there that you can do this on. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The poem is merely an extra, something we can work on while editing articles at the same time. Also, writing poems can increase one writing skills.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete not an appropriate use of User space, as it is unrelated to the encyclopedia. Eluchil404 08:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep is only a bit of fun in a users own userspace. it hurts no one and doesn't affect wikipedia in any way. In fact, it helps wikipedia becuase it creates a sence of community. Think outside the box 09:23, 15 November 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.