Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, defaulting to keep. ^demon[omg plz] 18:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie

Though this page was created in humour, it adds nothing to the encyclopaedia and has multiple violations of Comment on content, not on the contributor - WP:NPA.

Two (of multiple) examples:

  • Essjay: I will create so many false references of myself that faith in wikipedia will be irrevocably damaged. HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA.
  • Cute 1 4 u guilty for blatantly killing all the manatees in the United States

While Essjay has famously left, and Cute 1 4 u is a 12yo girl banned for sockpuppet games (though after 1000+ good edits), I believe WP:NPA should still apply to both of them and "humour" is not an excuse to ridicule past contributors (whether they left on a good note or not), especially since even banned users can sometimes return after having their bans overturned.

Attempts to remove this content have been reverted, attempts to address it on the talk page has lead to aggressive responses from a user who has been at my throat for a third of a year now (who then kindly proceeded to falsly tag me as a banned user). The owner of the user space, Raul654, did not show concern in the discussion and no one else cared to participate.

Due to the circumstances described above, I do not believe it is possible to get the content removed through a civil discussion on the talk page, hence if the content won't go I think the whole page should.--Konstable 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've deleted the Essjay section because I considered it in bad humor. As I said on the talk page when Konstable brought this up, I see nothing wrong with making light of proven vandals. As for the page, I say keep. It's clear from the number of contributors that have edited it that they don't consider this page a problem. Raul654 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. James, La gloria è a dio 16:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Raul654. I question the tastefulness of the manatee joke, but it's not worth blowing up the whole story. YechielMan 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete userspace is not for fantasizing about various Wikipedia editors, and the existence of the WP:WPMOVIE redirect falsely give an air of authority and acceptance by the community. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that redirect violates WP:CSD#R2, and has been deleted. --19:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the redirect actually violates that criterion, as neither the redirect page nor the target page is in mainspace. Newyorkbrad 23:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
WP: space is a de facto namespace; however, it is, de jure, in articlespace, meaning CSD R2 can apply. That's a change/clarification I'd like to see on WP:CSD. Picaroon 00:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What are you relying on for that de jure classification? (Not challenging you, honest curiosity; you can reply on my talk to avoid cluttering this MfD up any further.) Newyorkbrad 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Oof. What wikilawyering we have here, and rules merely for the sake of 'em. As though I don't see enough of that in real life. It should be noted, as an aside, that mirrors don't copy pages beginning with "WP:". Now, ZimZalaBim, doesn't the redirect WP:WPSONG also apply to this acceptance by community? I mean, I can just add a song there. Does that automatically give it authority? Acceptance by the community? Should we delete the redirect WP:ILIKEIT because some people don't like that essay? Of course not. Judging redirects based on whether or not the target page has consensus is a fruitless excercise. Someone can MFD my latent song, but can't the community also accrue consensus to remove sections of this movie page? GracenotesT § 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The redirect was not deleted due to any estimated of "acceptance by community" (that was a comment about the impact of having a "WP:" redirect on a user page - that this user page is somehow a "WikiProject"). The redirect was deleted because it redirected to a page in Userspace (whereas WP:WPSONG does not). --17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have no other reason for deleting the redirect than because policy says so, I think we need to change the policy. GracenotesT § 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on. It was clearly an inappropriate redirect. Do we really have to have an extended discussion on it? —Doug Bell talk 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. I still don't get the "clear" part, anyway. Why was there clearly a need to delete the redirect? GracenotesT § 19:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have the patience for this today. Figure it out yourself. —Doug Bell talk 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me. I had WP:CSD in mind, but also WP:IAR. So, I've figured it out... but the best thing to do is drop it. So I shall. GracenotesT § 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: As per User Raul654. It has been done it good tast. --Historyfan 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • keep I must lodge my dissent with the recent nominations of humor articles in user and wiki namespaces. A little laugh is a good thing every once in a while. Concerns about content are best addressed through talk pages, or possibly even mediation, but not deletion. The article itself does not need to be removed in order to remove one or two contentious lines.

Wintermut3 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I found it very confusing when I saw that page a few weeks ago; I had to read a fair bit before I understood it was a joke (and a very bad one at that). · AO Talk 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If stuff like this is kept...I don't see any reason for the deletion of the page... --KZ Talk • Contrib 10:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, there was a motion to get rid of the BJAODN archives anyway... not sure what stage it's at. --kingboyk 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but clean up. I wrote the deletionist scene, and several deletionists I know found it funny :) I would suggest the removal of scenes 11 and 12, since they frankly aren't that funny, and the former contains incorrect information about WP:3RR. GracenotesT § 13:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, there's no official policy on this, it's considered humorous but not offensive to anybody. --Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 13:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is the latest round in an ongoing argument over the page between User:Konstable and User:Moe Epsilon, both of whom have been extraordinarily lame about the whole issue. --tjstrf talk 17:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, a clear violation of WP:USER. I'm somewhat surprised at some of the editors, whose opinions I normally respect, are suggesting that this be kept. —Doug Bell talk 18:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep anything that encourages a sense of humor, a component of civility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Anything?? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. The page is also clearly labeled as humor. Might as well delete all humor pages if this goes through. — Deckiller 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; fix the obvious problems and let it be. Not that big a deal. Ral315 » 05:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not funny.-gadfium 19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP and how comme no one told me about this nomination. I think wikipedia should have an automated bot that advises everyone that edited an article or page when it is nominated for deletions. Plus you know what... I like the part when I play Jimbo's Lawyer. --CyclePat 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While clearly intended in humor and not a personal attack, it has a very cliquey and in-jokey air to it that could be discouraging to contributors, especially the "Cast" list which has undertones of a Wikipedia "who's who" list. Cultivating an oligarchical atmosphere such as this is antithetical to Wikipedia's community effort, and is not a productive use of userspace, which is provided to facilitate that effort. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the page ... and our sense of humour. Metamagician3000 08:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Douglas Rain as AntiVandalBot? "In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia delete you"? Keep, oh please, keep! In fact, expand to include a Citizendium scene. If a community doesn't develop in-jokes, it's not a community. Anville 19:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, maybe add a scene about pointless and stupid MFD nominations. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I am litterally crying from the humour! I have never felt better from such a great laugh and comment! If I wasn't such a lazy guy I'dd give you a barnstar or something.--CyclePat 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:ITSFUNNY--Konstable 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Raul654. It's funny. Why delete it?--$UIT 03:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:ITSFUNNY--Konstable 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • That essay states that those scenerios are geared toward the non-MfD discussions. — Deckiller 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • So? Then please explain why avoiding discussion and instead claiming "it's funny so keep" is relevant here.--Konstable 05:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Userspace allows people to express opinions and display information, as long as it is not taken to extremes. I believe this is a case where the humor is uniting Wikipedians in a lighthearted manner. Building team cohesiveness is a good idea in environments where people need to work together and get along. Humor - within reason - helps bind people together (imagine if a team of four workers couldn't make a joke; it would be boring, and they would not be sparked to work together as much). That's why it's so common in the workplace, and that's why it naturally carries over to Wikipedia. And that could be a very solid reason why ITSFUNNY isn't mentioned specifically in regard to userspace and essays. However, what I do agree with is that we need to take it easy: removing comments on banned users should not be allowed in humorspace, and every non-banned editor should have the right to remove any information regarding them on humor-tagged articles. Of course, there are many other reasons why this page should be kept. — Deckiller 06:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I think you will find that WP:ITSFUNNY does not ban humour, nor is it any defense to a page to be kept because it's funny, nor am I saying "delete it because it's funny". So really I'm not sure how what you're saying is relevant.--Konstable 07:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
            • By all means, say "Delete, because it's not funny and fails to serve its function"; really, people that vote "Keep, it's funny" should have no more problem with that vote than you have with theirs. If people agree with you, they will vote in a similar manner. And you're treating ITSFUNNY like it's policy or something. Maybe use its logic, not its mere existence. GracenotesT § 16:07, 2 April 2007 (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.