Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Cabals

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 debate was speedy keep. It seems clear where the community stands on this; as long as editors participate in actual encyclopedic areas, a bit of fun now and then is harmless. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cabals

• User:Diligent Terrier/Smiley Cabal
• User:ComputerGuy890100/Road Cabal
• User:RyRy5/UserSpace Cabal
• User:RyRy5/Cool Cabal
• User:Diligent Terrier/Nerd Cabal

Adds no encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not MySpace/Facebook/etc George The Dragon (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: five seperate noms merged. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for George The Dragon: What about this one, and this one... why didn't you nom those for deletion, if I may ask (I'm just wondering)? Basketball110 23:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, it should have just been the four listed at the WP:ANI but I mixed up an extra one I had mentioned elsewhere earlier. My reason for listing is, as explained at ANI, to try and end a thread that was drifting away from the initial point George The Dragon (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, sigh. -- Naerii 22:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep productive editor who just wants some fun - my opinion would change of course if they werent productive. Viridae^Talk 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - While I'm not a huge fan of so-called cabals, I also don't think they do a huge amount of damage. I say let 'em be. They're a way of expression connection to other editors, and that's a good thing. - Philippe | Talk 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: "Good lord, is humor illegal? Sean William @ 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)". Sceptre ^(talk) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep: "Weak" because, strictly speaking, they don't directly promote the main mission of the site. "Keep" because though they don't directly promote, they do support that mission as a social outlet that still directs the users towards positive and continued contributions. Justin Eiler (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Do they distract the editors from collaborating on the encyclopedia? No. Do the editors involved only edit these pages and not help the encyclopedia? No. Therefore, WP:NOT#MYSPACE should not apply. —Kurykh 23:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• My opinion:
  • Smiley Cabal: Weak Keep - spreads WikiLove by means of smiles
  • Road Cabal: Weak Delete - has yet to release a mission statement, of my knowledge
  • UserSpace Cabal: Strong Keep - helps user w/ their userpages
  • Cool Cabal: Weak Keep - helps users keep a cool head
  • Nerd Cabal: Keep - working on some articles... trying to get some out of stub, some to GA

Basketball110 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Um, Keep: There's a community on Wikipedia. It needs funny, quirky stuff to survive. Screaming "omg myspace" at anything which isn't an article doesn't help our aim at all. These are created by productive editors and nominating them for deletion is, on the face of it, simple grouchiness. Do you think people would contribute here if they didn't find it fun? Martinp23 23:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Delete all cabals - we have to do it; it's policy. Friday (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You are aware that that is a joke, right? Basketball110 23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep All These cabals do promote in helping the encyclopedia with smiles, keeping cool, promoting articles to GA, ect.RyRy5 talk 23:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per all above. Would support speedy close. GlassCobra 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• COMMENT: The closing admin should know that User:Friday created [WP:DELETE ALL CABALS after this MfD was created. The article he linked the redirect to doesn't say to delete all cabals. He is impersonating Wikipedia policy. Basketball110 23:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, User:Friday is not "impersonating" Wiki-policy. Friday is not only an admin, but a damn good one, and he/she is giving his/her opinion on this issue. Justin Eiler (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But then why create the irrelevant redirect, and claim it is policy? Basketball110 23:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm - it doesnt carry well on the net. Viridae^Talk 23:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not... Friday if you wanted to make a point, make the point. Sarcasm isn't good, according tp Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful. Basketball110 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I got the impression that Friday was making something of a joke. In any case, it's not something to get upset/bothered about, or even to care about. Martinp23 00:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

He also sent me this message. Basketball110 00:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm, or tongue in cheek comments, don't travel well over the internet. Nor, often, does humour. His comment there reads to me as somewhat jokey in nature too (note the "!"), but I could be totally wrong. In any case, I'll say again - don't get worked up over it. Thanks. Martinp23 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I had my tea, and I'm sitting confortable, thank you. Basketball110 00:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - If some editors want to get together and help each other out (our first project being the random article contest, which is a race for the members to find a random article and raise it to GA or higher), then why stop them (or us, I should say). — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 23:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hello and I am the creator of 2 of the cabals listed at the top. Our contest is a task that tries to make many articles make GA ststus, and eventually, FA status. Members also have a motivatation to make their article into GA then FA, it's the awards. Although, I don't think being nomiated for adminship award isn't very good since that user may not be ready or may nott want to, but it's a motivation.--RyRy5 talk 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• keep per Viridae. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep again, per Viridae. If they were doing little else, fine, but they're not. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Ahem, Strong Keep - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Can we go ahead and snowball this? The nomination was in good faith (though I don't feel the original comment on AN/I was), but I think we have a sufficient glimpse of the community consensus. Justin Eiler (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. -- Naerii 01:10, 29 March 2008 (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.