Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiWhacking

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live.' Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, with a vote of 6 delete and 4 keep. The article defaults to keep. Joyous 03:07, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiWhacking

Wikipedia is not a role playing game. There are some games in Category:Wikipedia games but this one never seems to have worked. Sortior 23:20, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, original research, wikipedia is not a blog. Wyss 01:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Nick nack WikiWhack, give this one the bone. DCEdwards1966
• Delete, original research. Rje 02:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: And this one went into the deleted home. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... and shouldn't we delete everything else in the Category:Wikipedia games list under the same logic? LostCluster 03:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well... the thing is it is under the Wikipedia namespace, let us not forget that. The other ones are active "project pages" and I think that people do visit the other ones. The request, so it seems, was placed because it didn't work, and is likely inactive. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: As the creator of this page seems currently active, I'm going to ask his opinion. I'm fairly sure we'll be deleting it, but IMO a little courtesy would be appropriate here. No vote for the moment. Andrewa 04:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like an interesting idea, though not a game that I would want to play. Keep it as an example of Wiki culture (albeit a failed one). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• No reason to delete. Andre (talk) 21:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Why do you say that it's original research? It's an attempt to create a project in the Wikipedia namespace. No research at all as far as I can see. - Jeltz talk 22:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In Wikipedia namespace. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 03:22, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In part because of its location in the Wikipedia namespace, I see nothing wrong with keeping it. And its not a bad idea. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 03:48, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
• Comment: User:KellyCoinGuy I appreciate the courtesy of inviting me to this page Andrewa. Thank you. Courtesy is a good Wiki Community feature. As the original author of the page, I thought at the time it was an interesting idea... the goal was to see if participation in Wikipedia could be promulgated through the approach of a game. It didn't work, and I'm sure that by itself is interesting. Why didn't it catch on? Because nobody saw it, because nobody cared, because it didn't have a champion, or (my favorite) it was just a plain old fashioned STUPID idea. ;-) I won't venture an opinion as to whether the page should be kept or deleted, I am ok with it either way... but it does present an interesting sociological question about how the Wikipedia community is different than say, most chat rooms. I think Tony had the real insight about the significance of this page (if indeed it has ANY AT ALL). I will say this though, the Wikipedia:Wiki-Link Game is far more inane. The Wikipedia:Wikifun game seems fun, but doesn't contribute... maybe if it contributes, then it's not a game? Before deleting the article entirely, why not give it half a chance to succeed by placing it (properly) in the category Wikipedia games and see if it catches on then? 10 Jan 2005

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.