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. Obviously bad faith nom by a user with two edits (first, AfD notice, and second, this nom). utcursch | talk 13:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Department of Fun[edit]

I know that the previous nomination of this was mired by sockpuppets. However, the argument presented there had some backing. The Department of Fun has been known to cause more harm than good, such as the Mind Benders set of subpages [over 20!] and other unencyclopedic stuff. I agree that Wikipedia needs to have some fun in it, or we would all be bored stiff! But it doesn't need an organisation co-ordinating it, and filling Wikipedia:x with nonsense. I can see the Dept. of Fun becoming a 'post' for holding up nonsense in User: or WP:. Speaking of 'posts', an argument in the previous mfd was that "Jimbo Wales is a member". I feel that that argument was sort of saying "we can't delete it because Jimbo Wales is a member" and that anything that Jimbo belongs to will permanently stay. So if Jimbo belonged to Wikipedia:Association of cat murderers [not that he would be!], we would have to keep said group permanently? Although Wikipedians need to enjoy themselves, we don't need a 'Silliness central junction'. TheHouseofFerret 12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC) — TheHouseofFerret (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Speedy keep. Yet another possible sockpuppet with only 2 edits - to nominate this for deletion. Plus the previous debate was in the immediate past. MER-C 12:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If Jimbo Wales is a member, it means he supports its existence, which should count for something. Having the department of fun means it will all be organized in one single location instead of being all over the place. Organization also means the members as a group can set some guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable. Also, re-nomination is too soon and by possible sockpuppet with no relevant edit history to the project. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.