Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is serious business (2nd nomination)
- 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, seriously. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The only sentence is "it just is", which is neither informative nor humorous. This should be redirected to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world, or put in userspace. Pikachu RP25 18:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Did you read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is serious business first? Legoktm (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- I did, and it appears that in that last nomination, consensus was not reached before the discussion closed. RedPanda25 22:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- The nomination was open for three weeks and in the absence of consensus to delete, the page was retained. Nick (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- I did, and it appears that in that last nomination, consensus was not reached before the discussion closed. RedPanda25 22:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid opinions. The implied opinion is that verbosity doesn't make for a better argument. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This material and the page history is the institutional memory of Wikipedia, it's not something we should be unduly concerned about deleting. The Wikipedia namespace has a wide range of material we should preserve, the material can be anything from underlying principals of the project to the passing whims of various editors and administrators. This page gives a sense of the lighter side of Wikipedia, which has sadly fallen away with the rise of paid editors, hackers, scammers, agenda pushers and other ne'er-do-wells who have sucked much fun out of the project. Nick (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per the previous discussion and because I got a kick out of it.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Me too. This is serious. But only so serious. More than "not serious", less than "deadly serious". It just is. Just don't take it seriously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2016 (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.