Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Brambleberry of RiverClan/Wikipedia V: Brambleberry's Journey

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was: keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brambleberry of RiverClan/Wikipedia V: Brambleberry's Journey

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my "keep" at the original nomination for this batch. jp×g 22:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This clearly constitutes writings [...] not closely related to Wikipedia's goals (quote from Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?), and thus not an acceptable use of userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Remove names of anyone who objects, because otherwise why should we care about some goofy sandbox page? If this were created by someone WP:NOTHERE (which does happen with this "humor" content sometimes), then I'd probably suggest deleting, but it's just a bit of goofiness in userspace, where one is allowed to be goofy, experiment with wikicode, collect userboxes, be part of the Wikipedia community, etc. as long as you're otherwise here for the right reasons. WP:UP#GAMES specifically links to Category:Wikipedia games, of course, which has all manner of silly stuff that doesn't really have "educational value", yet some manages to find a home in projectspace. It seems like fine practice not to include the names of users who object and/or banned users who cannot object, and it certainly shouldn't depict anyone in a negative light without proactive consent, but otherwise, what is the deletion rationale for this vs any other "asdfasdf" sandbox? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Project reflection. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : A lot of these MfDs are starting to feel like Wikipedia:CENSOR. It is not excessive Wikipedia:User_pages#Excessive_unrelated_content and complaining about it is definitely WP:5P4. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That’s not a great use of any of those cites but I no longer have any opinion on this. My main objection was WP:BLP but since consensus is that it does not, broadly speaking, violate the applicable policy that is no longer relevant. Dronebogus (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2021 (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.