Most x are/have y, so an x should have y.

There is this debate I am having online over this wiki that was made. The wiki is full of jokes and doesn't provide much information and is really just a for fun wiki for the forum.

One person said it should be deleted because "Most wiki's have valuable info, this wiki does not so it is not a valuable wiki"

Is this a no true Scotsman, or is it some other fallacy. I know it is a fallacy but can't seem to figure out which one.

Let's formalize this argument for the person and remove the extraneous information...

P1: Wiki's that don't contain valuable information should be deleted.
P2: This wiki does not contain valuable information.
C: Therefore, this wiki should be deleted.

This is a valid argument. To see if it is sound, both premises need to be true. Since both p1 and p2 appear to be opinions, I don't know how this can be demonstrated as sound, unless the "should" in p1 refers to a well accepted rule, but even then p2 can still be argued. I think your best bet here would be to challenge the premises (make them provide support for these claims since they have the burden of proof).