Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedians

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - redirected

apparently originally Wikipedians, changed midway to Wikipedia:Wikipedians[edit]

Obvious vanity and nonencyclopedic, for at least three reasons:

  1. "Wikipedian" is not even marginally recognized as a meaningful term.
  2. The entry is superfluous. We already have a Wikipedia entry. We already have entries for volunteer and community. All this page seems to be is a vanity list of Wikipedia contributors, most of who have not done anything even remotely noteworthy.
  3. There's nothing particularly interesting or unique about this (made up) word. "Wikipedian" simply refers to someone who frequents or has contributed to Wikipedia. Why have an entry for this term then, and not entries for a "Slashdotter", "Kuro5hinist", or countless other words that could be derived in this fashion?

-- GNAA Popeye 22:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As User:Cool Hand Luke points out below, the original article listed for deletion was Wikipedians in Wikipedia namespace. That is now a redirect to Wikipedia, so in some ways the original issue here has become moot. I for one find it a bit confusing that someone changed what article we are talking about mid-debate. GNAA Popeye, now that that Wikipedians is a redirect to Wikipedia, do you still have an issue here? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:45, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Articles in the Wikipedia: namespace ain't articles, so they need not be encyclopedic. It serves a useful function in terms of organizing the project, so it ought then to be kept..... There really should be a separate VfD page for the Wikipedia-namespace, since the issues in deleting pages from their differ significantly from the issues of deleting usual articles. Keep -- (Unsigned vote by User:137.111.13.34)
  • Ridiculous, GNAA Popeye is trolling for a reaction. Keep. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • No, I genuinely believe this is a vanity entry. Accusing me of "trolling" is dodging the real issue.GNAA Popeye 22:57, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree. This is trolling. Keep. Spikeballs 23:01, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons stated above. GNAA Popeye 22:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; not notable outside Wikipedia, already covered by article Wikipedia. — Bill 23:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There is undoubtedly an element of trolling in listing this, but he has a point. -- Jmabel|Talk 23:29, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Um, this should really be on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, and for what it's worth Keep. Cool Hand Luke 23:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this be on meta instead? -Sean Curtin 23:35, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Can we even vote to delete things in the wikipedia namespace? If so, keep. Posiduck 23:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Tricky question, Posiduck. The Wikipedia space needs cleaning, and some folks have undertaken housekeeping there, but it's tough stuff. All the failed proposals, the goofy stuff, the quizes, etc. People are supposed to take their own junk down, but they don't. So I suppose we can vote on deletion in the Wikipedia space, but no one has to honor it. Something like that. FWIW, this is an obvious keep and a silly debate. Geogre 00:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Er... so it is currently in the Wikipedia name space and not the article namespace, right? Keep. A good issue is raised here, however: While we understand the differences between namespaces, an outsider coming here for the first time might not... I assume that's relevent to, um, I don't know, something. ;-) func(talk) 00:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Article was moved to the Wikipedia namespace back in September 2002. This is entirely legitimate. Protestations that this isn't trolling ring hollow from a person with GNAA in his username. — Gwalla | Talk 01:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, nonecyclopedic. Vetta2 01:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • ??? Er, yeah, non-encyclopedic... so it's a good thing that it isn't one of our encyclopedic articles. Maybe we should get rid of Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion, it's clearly unencyclopedic. func(talk) 01:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I never thought I'd be voting on the same side as GNAA Popeye, but so I am. Delete. Vanity, not notable. --Improv 02:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Note also that the self-add nature of a lot of the parts of the page really make it more like Wikipedians who bother with this entry than Wikipedians. Bleh. --Improv 02:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't understand why we are voting on something that isn't an article. There should be a completely different mechanism for that. Should we also VFD every single user page for "vanity"? func(talk) 02:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mackensen 03:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though I question whether this nomination is even appropriate, given how we're dealing with something in the Wikipedia: namespace. Modargo 04:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it is a very nice idea, especially the list(s) of Wikipedians from different countries. Any messages, see User talk:Honeycake--Honeycake 16:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and ban the trolls already. —No-One Jones (m) 04:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, duh. Antandrus 04:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep... [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth ─┼─]] 05:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: an anon has changed this back to Wikipedians which is a redirect. The consensus on the page itself is that it should be kept—easily—but the redirect might be another matter. Redirects to outside the article namespace are discouraged. Try listing on RfD. Cool Hand Luke 05:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Unask the question. --jpgordon {gab} 06:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the redirect in namespace 0, keep the entry in the Wikipedia: namespace. --Sam Hocevar 13:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - why do I feel that the integrity of those listing articles on VfD has taken a nosedive recently... no wonder VfD is out of control in terms of size. - Mark 14:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I've unilaterally changed the redirect to point to Wikipedia. If you disagree with this, please mention this on the talk page. anthony (see warning) 15:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me. We have lots of policy violating redirects for things like VfD, but this isn't important enough to break the rules. Cool Hand Luke 17:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the page, part of being a community, don't care about the redir. Stan 15:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's definately a part of the community, vanity list or not. I don't see how you'd suggest deleting a part of the Wikipedia community. While you're at it, feel free to submit the entire bad jokes and other deleted nonsense to VfD for being literal. --Andylkl 17:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Do note that the GNAA partisan that nominated this actually listed the main namespace redirect Wikipedians, now fixed. Cool Hand Luke 17:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, since it is in Wikipedia namespace, not article namespace. --sabre23t 16:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It seems no one has thought about the implications of deleting a page that mainly serves as a list. How would we be able to access quickly and without having to remember all the exact titles pages such as Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest, Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians or, say, Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Sweden? Keep of course. <KF> 23:58, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 04:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why are we feeding the trolls? Dori | Talk 18:40, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems useful in some odd way, agree w/namespace argument. Mashford 19:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've found it useful, a quick reference to a Wikipedian inside or outside of your region. -- AxSkov 08:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • WTF. You can't VfD articles in the Wikipedia: namespace and say they are non-notable! Though this is pretty funny. Andre (talk) 14:50, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Again, what was nominated was not in Wikipedia name-space. I'm by no means a GNAA partisan, but I think the nominator has been treated a bit shabbily by making it look to casual readers like he proposed something he did not. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:00, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep All this reminds me of the Delete the Main Page discussion which once was started on a 1st of April. You too? --Magadan 14:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitely Keep. I find myself visiting this page at least once a week. I can't even believe someone would suggest it be deleted. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 17:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia:Wikipedians, happen what may to Wikipedians. I almost got a [[heart attack]] on seeing the message at Wikipedia:Wikipedians and seeing that the date wasn't around April 1 :). -- Paddu


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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedians&oldid=1138722640"