Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry

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) 12:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry

Violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gaming website. Move off site or to the users who created the poems userpage. Distracts users from encyclopedia too. Lcarsdata (Talk) 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Also the following subpages should probably be deleted with this:

• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry/One more time
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry/Peices
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry/Pure poems
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry/The first one
• Wikipedia_talk:Sandbox/Poetry/Archive

Lcarsdata (Talk) 18:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom: and you can't very well say this is going to help people find good articles to edit. Moreschi 20:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, use a social networking site for this sort of thing – Gurch 05:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; Wikipedia is a damn encyclopedia, not a playground. Ral315 (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't get the point. Of the >million articles, there have to be some with a little fun. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I quite believe that fun can be found elsewhere. For example, I've amused myself playing games on IRC with other Wikipedians, or going to many excellent game websites. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Ral315 (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Extreamly strong Keep, wikipedians need a place for fun and the sandbox provides such a place that does not affect the integrity on wikipedia articles. Many users regually take part in the sandbox and removing a relaxing place will only make users feel represed in a stuffy environment. Think outside the box 09:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Here come the Sandbox police again. Read my comments in the "Word Association" for deletion, folks, and stop being aristocrats.--WaltCip 14:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. Seriously. You guys are a bunch of Sandbox haters. The Sandbox is a great way for people to learn editing and have fun at the same time. NapalmRiot 2:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)purple purple purple purple purple cheesepuffs

  Comment: this user has no edits outside of the sandbox and its subpages and the related MfDs. Also, please stay civil and do not resort to personal attacks. Moreschi 18:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:just because they have no edits outside of the sandbox does not their opinion is invalid. Think outside the box 12:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:I think it does. It puts a massive hole in the theory that users need all these sandbox activities to relieve the stress of making valid contributions to the encyclopaedia. --Folantin 12:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:By contrary argument, a user who doesn't contribute to the sandbox shouldn't have the right to NfD.--WaltCip 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yes, because the whole point of this project is to create a huge sandbox and attract users to play to their hearts' content in it. The fact there's something called an encyclopaedia attached to it is clearly just a bonus. --Folantin 08:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Since when has writing poetry been a game? Homestarmy 18:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest keep there's ever been: Pretty much a jumbo-pack of the keeps above. We need to have some fun around here. It's only a few articles. No harm done. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Mark J 20:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. bibliomaniac15 Review? 00:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe keep the main part, but delete other subpages. I can kind of see this as an interesting way to demonstrate wiki editing in the sandbox, but we don't need to record it or actually use as a place to generate poetry. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If you want to launch your doggerel on the world, get a blog. --Folantin 08:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Please avoid personal attacks. And it's a sandbox project, not a mainspace. --WaltCip 12:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment...and this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a school magazine. --Folantin 12:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- and that wasn't attack on any person, it was comment on the quality of the poetry. To be honest, its hard to disagree. Moreschi 13:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment. Especially since on this very page the user complaining about "personal attacks" has urged those voting for deletion to "stop being aristocrats" (whatever that's supposed to mean).--Folantin 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Because you ARE being aristocrats (if not sockpuppets). Using your exact same arguments, you could say the sandbox is distracting from the encyclopedia and then nominate it for deletion. On the other hand, nobody has to go to the sandbox.--WaltCip 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• "If not sockpuppets". You really think that? Take that to Checkuser. See what happens then. If Folantin and myself are the same person, that one person would be spending all their time on WP. If that meant what I think it did, that is a repellent personal attack and I, and doubtless Folantin as well, demand an instant apology. Moreschi 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and no, I couldn't ask for the sandbox to be deleted. That provides a useful place for newbies to experiment. This is just social networking and not encyclopedic, pure and simple. Moreschi 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Warning: to WaltCip Totally unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are a blatant violation of WP:ASG. You're also in massive violation of WP:CIVIL, pal.--Folantin 20:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• By guidance of WP:CIVIL I apologize. However, Poetry and Word Association are also articles and projects of experimentation and testing linking/editing on WikiPedia. Sure, this may be social networking, but if WP was all work and no play, no one would want to go there. It would turn into an aristrocracy, and the whole point of the sandbox is that it's not meant to be under regulation. To go so far as to delete an entire project represents a large amount of dubious audacity on your part, and I'm surprised that you've gone this far. Let's take for example Yahoo.com. We could dumb it down to "Yahoo's supposed to be a search engine, not a gaming website." Instantly many, many people who ordinarily go to the website would leave, and the whole reason Wikipedia was created was to differentiate itself from the snobbery of Encyclopedia Britannica. Think about it. If you're going to NFD, fine, but view the integrity of arguments, don't just count heads. It's not a democracy, an aristocracy, or a bureaucracy. It's WIKIPEDIA.--WaltCip 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• And it's not a distraction from WikiPedia, otherwise it would post this on every page you went to: Go to the Poetry section in the WikiPedia Sandbox NOW!!!. As far as I know it doesn't do that. To find it you have to actually go to the sandbox.--WaltCip 20:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not part of Wikipedia's mission. ike9898 17:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not useful or relevant here. Just a distraction. --Quiddity 20:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my statements on similar game pages. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a poetry club. JDoorjam Talk 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep People can use the sandbox for testing, this is an extension. --SunStar Net 13:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Also, this place has some amazing poetry there. Although it is too long. *SMILYS FOR ALL!* Da.Tomato.Dude 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per the fact that it's under Sandbox/. I find it interesting that the same group of people is automatically voting "delete" on all of nom's AfDs... --JStalk 01:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned that as well, but it's against WP:ASG to suggest unfounded sockpuppetry.--WaltCip 01:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Funny, another group of people seems to be going round automatically voting "keep" on all of nom's AfDs. Must be a conspiracy, there can be no other explanation. I also find it interesting why so many users in favour of "keep" have to resort to ad hominem arguments in order to make their point. It can't possibly be because their case is as feeble as the poetry on offer here, can it? --Folantin 08:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Strange, because your argument sounds like argumentum ad antiquitatem. Wikipedia's always been like this, so therefore it can't have that. I'm sorry, I don't see it. I think Wikipedia is multilateral.--WaltCip 15:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No, I think Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should stay that way. If people can't find a single one of the myriad sites for publishing their verse elsewhere on the Net, they're hardly likely to have the research skills to be able to produce encyclopaedia articles. --Folantin 15:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - "Wikipedia is multilateral". Really? According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a social networking site or a webspace provider. This just seems to be some sort of poetry club - not what the Sandbox is meant to be about. This kind of "amusing" diversion can be found on other websites, if necessary - indeed, it must go to another website per WP:NOT. But it does not belong in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Moreschi 16:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Those policies only account for the encyclopedia itself to prevent advertising, hence my stance on the deletion of the Hangman article. However, in the case of the sandbox, it's pointless to legislate it, since other junk will just come up in the future, inevitably. People who say that the sandbox is not a playground... sandboxes can be found in playgrounds, from what I last saw.--WaltCip 18:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I see several arguments that these are OK because they are in the Sandbox. I'd like to point out that the Sandbox is for testing and experimenting, not for persistent pages. So given the criteria about it being the sandbox, perhaps we should just have a bot that blanks the Sandbox pages AND subpages every 24 hours. Then I wouldn't have any problem with people creating as much poetry as they wanted in the sandbox during the 24-hour period it would be there. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm all for that. The page could use a bit of cleanup, but I still think it's bad faith to delete this and Word Association, considering the amount of popularity it gets. Sandbox ALSO means "a sandpit in a playground" and "an online environment in which code or content changes can be tested without affecting the original system(s)" If it was only used by about five or six odd people, yes, it should be deleted. However, you simply can't shun these guys.--WaltCip 20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually what I meant to say was "have a bot that blanks the Sandbox pages AND deletes subpages every 24 hours" since even the subpages themselves shouldn't be persistent. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:21, 11 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.