Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:General Eisenhower/QRVS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 no consensus. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:General Eisenhower/QRVS and User:OrtonFan2006/SCVF

These ideas is poorly thought through, and simply unnecessary. The CVU is an anti-vandalism organisation, and vandalism response is very rapid removing the point out of Quick Response Vandalism Squad. I am nominating this and User:OrtonFan2006/SCVF, a very similar organisation, due to the fact it is simply unnecessary. Computerjoe's talk 18:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. Computerjoe's talk 18:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Erm, you really didn't need to point that out. Since xfD is not a vote, you're better off writing a decent nomination rather than caring about whether or not you got the right words in in bold. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely unnecessary. Archer7 19:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • weak Delete It sets a mildly troubling precedent if many people replicate the same wiki-project within their userspaces under slightly different names. I could see this becoming a cause of confusion. Mr. Parham is correct that these do no great harm, however. Xoloz 21:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete takes up disk space, it is (as far as I can tell) no differant from the CVU. American Patriot 1776 22:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This discussion about whether we should keep it or not will generate about as much disk space as the pages themselves. And last time I checked, disk space for text usage was not in short supply. --Fastfission 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but deprecate if appropriate. These appear to be good-faith policy pages. The community may discuss and eventually reject them but we rarely delete such pages. Rather, we mark them as {{historical}} or {{rejected}} and keep them so we can learn from our past efforts. Rossami (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Erm, they're WikiProjects, not policy proposals. --Rory096 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Erm no. If anything, they are Wikipedian organisations. Computerjoe's talk 09:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • However your try to categorize them, they appear to me to be good-faith efforts and should probably be deprecated rather than deleted. Rossami (talk)
  • Delete, no reason to have a zillion new pages like these that all do the same thing and don't have any members. --Rory096 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there a good reason not to have them? Why not just ignore them? --Fastfission 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vandalism is easily reverted quickly and immediatly by those who see it. I fail to see what a quick response wiki-project might be able to bring to the process. If anything it can only slow down the process. Ydam 11:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Then don't participate in it! Why get involved with what others want to do? It doesn't affect you or anybody else on here, so why not just leave it alone? --Fastfission 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep this is not harming anything and it is a user page after all. Aeon 22:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Even granting for the moment that CVU is a Good Thing (and you'd have to catch me on a really good day to eve coax that much), offshoot counter-vandalism cliques are unnecessary and potentially dangerous: we don't want a dozen little groups blundering about, biting newbies and getting in the way of real RC patrollers. That said, I don't think we should (or can) use MfD or similar mechanisms to compel these misguided individuals to do their vandalism-cleanup in a more supportive environment (like on IRC, or — gulp — CVU). I'd like to see ventures like this collapse on their own, with all participants a little wiser for the experience; not simply smudged out of existence because it offends those of us who aren't caught up in the whizz-bang novelty of forming cliques and holding silly elections and building userboxen and other fun stuff that always seems to occur these days when a new wiki-organisation is formed. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm taking that's a delete. Computerjoe's talk 08:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not your job to take it as anything. I've written my view on the matter, not three lines up; you don't need to break it down into bite-sized chunks. MfD is not a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - We really don't need counter-vandalism forks. --Cyde Weys 04:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to explain how it differs from the original. — May. 16, '06 [09:35] <freak|talk>
  • Delete per freakofnuture. --Andy123 talk 12:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no need to duplicate CVU. Kimchi.sg 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm sure it's in good faith but I'm afraid I can't understand the need - it's not as if some types of vandalism are only worth a slow response, and I'm not sure what other types of vandalism this group are apparently going to respond to over the CVU. -- Mithent 16:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's in my userspace. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 20:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, its beyond the relm of userspaceishness, it has become a Wikiproject, if that makes any sense what so ever. American Patriot 1776 20:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: First time I disagreed with the community. These are in user space, why should these be deleted? These users made a small group and now you guys want to delete their page? Reminds of Hitler getting rid of minorities cause he found them unecessary and a desease to his organization, in this case CVU. Struck out due to request. - Tutmosis 02:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep (although you'll see no Hitler references here) because it's a user subpage that's not harming anything. If members start harassing newbies, then they should be warned and/or sanctioned at that point, not before "in case" there are problems. --Ginkgo100 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Give it a chance. Scienceman123 01:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep A few people fave it right. These are only userspaces. So why delete 'em? OrtonFan2006 06:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete How many counter-vandalism organisations do we need?? - • The Giant Puffin • 18:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Hey, I know from experience how slow the vandilism response can be. I used to be a vandal. Keeping this page isn't hurting anyone anymore than Specialist doctors are hurting sick people.DuctoMan 20:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for historical intrest. Much like the Willy on Wheels page's MFD. Beside, it's a User's subpage. The Gerg 00:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. They aren't doing any harm, that I can see, and I think we should have a fairly high standard before deleting things off of a user's subpages. --Fastfission 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There's no need to stop people from doing something good for the encyclopedia. --Alphachimp talk 01:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP! This is a big keep, I like this project and feel that there is NO NEED to delete this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rayven the Crook (talk • contribs) 02:16, 21 May 2006.
  • Delete Duplicate of existing effort. The page looks like result of teenager-like group/gang forming tendency. Sorry kids, you cant have your own page (without justufucation), wikipedia is not anarchy (well, neither democracy).--Alvin-cs ✉ 11:05, 21 May 2006 (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.