Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun Nomination 3

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 speedy keep due to unanimous opposition (that had reasoning behind it). As a side note, the nomination was the nominator's fourth edit. This is a non-admin close. Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse Speedy Keep per initial WP:SNOW and unsteady nomination. The nominator is encouraged to bring up changes to the project on the project talk page. — xaosflux Talk 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Department of Fun

Can I first just say, that I am nothing to do with the lame sockpuppet masters that created the last two entries. I do, however, believe that a place co-ordinating and listing what are, essentially boring and childish 'fun activities', of which only a small minority are up-to-date and 'working', is rather useless. I am not opposed to having fun, I just feel that this project doesn't really need to exist to organise it. People can find their own way to these places. If deletion does not seem viable, could we reorganise it and cut down on the extraneous matter that is either out-of-date, useless, or not needed. A mass shake up was good for some the Esperanza projects, so maybe it will help here. 3lit3man 16:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This Department has been nominated in the past for deletion. As a Department member, I consider myself and other members as ambassadors to Wikipedia. Our Department seeks to make Wikipedia an entertaining experience for other users. While we have not hit our niche yet, this Department could become a more important factor in the days ahead to the Wikipedian experience. Ronbo76 16:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, an MfD is not the way to do this. -Amarkov moo! 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd also like to know how the nominator figured out the MfD process so well, and learned about Esperanza, all within 6 edits. -Amarkov moo! 16:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep or faster if you like. --Alf melmac 16:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - highly useful. anthonycfc [talk] 16:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - You've killed Esperanza, almost killed Concordia, all of the Sandbox subpages, and now this? Wikipedia members are not employees. PTO 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Ebyabe 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It helps build the community, and that's almost always a good thing. YechielMan 20:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per the Wikipedia:Esperanza deletions.--WaltCip 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see a huge bloated bureaucracy, nor 10,000 sub-projects that should be on their own, nor elections to a supervising committee, nor an official charter that takes months of work to make any changes to, nor votestacking, nor people strutting around saying "I'm in the Department of Fun so I'm better than you". Leaving a grand total of 0 of the reasons Esperanza was even nominated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amarkov (talk • contribs).
  • Speedy Keep because noms that start out with "I am not a sockpuppet" should be ignored. JuJube 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a case completely different from Esperanza or any other subcommunity which may exist here. It works well as a reference page and keeps the humanity within these pages. Also, your claim against sockpuppetry does not hold up to well in the face of evidence. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:31, 19 March 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.