Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Chess championship

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 Delete all, except main page, which tag as historical. For some reason, those expressing affections for games in other debates now on-going have failed to comment in support here, leading me to think this page is truly obsolete. Xoloz 19:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Chess championship

Not encyclopedic: violates WP:NOT a place for social networking. Waste of server space and capacity. Also wasting time that could be spent actually helping the encyclopedia.Moreschi 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For this one, there are enjoyable billions of related subpages that I'm also nominating for deletion, though I may not catch the lot. If I do miss any that you notice, please include them in the list. There may also be some duplication, for which I apologise. The current list is just a taster: more on the way tomorrow GMT. All right, I think that's the lot. Moreschi 23:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - As per all my masses of comments on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee Lounge/Games section below... Spawn Man 06:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename it to a subpage of Esperanza - this is obviously a morale-boosting page. Let Wikipedia:Esperanza take it under their wing.  The Transhumanist   09:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    The duplicating Esperanza pages are about to be deleted. Moreschi 10:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete these and all the other 'game' pages, this isn't what Wikipedia is for – Gurch 15:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete,now - This is getting out of hand. Chess? Checkers? What next, Esperanza Mortal Kombat? --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    Back, back, forward, forward and low kick to implicate John Seigenthaler Sr. in the removal of your opponent's spine. WIKIALITY! --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    LOL! Seriously, have you seen WikiPlomacy? Jaw-dropping stuff. Though I like the way the user naively mentioned this page in the middle of a deletion discussion on similar pages. You could just sense the sharks changing direction and heading towards the new victim... Carcharoth 01:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'm a wiki-shark? Man. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, we are here to build an encyclopedia, that's our goal, not to play chess 24/7, next?? Wiki-Warcraft? Lol... --Terence Ong (C | R) 15:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well why do we have administrators then? Some admins (probably most) have never even written a FA. Yet somehow they get elected on pure social achievements. If you say we're here to write a 'pedia, then why don't you pass a bill that adds one FA to the criteria for adminship? I'd support cause I've got 4 & I'm still stalking around the depths.... Spawn Man 01:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It depends on what type of "social achievements" you are referring to. Do you mean Portals, WikiProjects, Esperanza, AfD, or contributions to the project namespace in general?--TBCΦtalk? 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
        • People who generally avoid mainspace edits & take on a more AfD, RfA voting/commenting work load. Although they may need the tools more than mainspace editors, I still feel that a FA or a GA or 2 should be added to the admin criteria. As you said, we are here to write a 'pedia. Spawn Man 07:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) :)
          • Adminship requires responsible people that the community can trust. Contributing to an FA can demonstrate that, but there are plenty of people who write FA-standard material, but are too impulsive, too quick to anger, and too irrational in their arguments to be trusted with admin buttons. Being a good writer and editor should be one thing about adminship, but not the only thing. Carcharoth 10:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the subpages, but keep the main page and tag it as historical.--TBCΦtalk? 04:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all; off-site gaming can (and should) be organized via userpages or groups like Esperanza. No need to take up project space. Eluchil404 10:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but transwiki them to another wiki. I heard that someone's set up a copy of Wikipedia, at [1] apparently; maybe they can be transwikied there under the GFDL requirements?? --SunStar Net 10:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the subpages, but keep the main page and tag it as historical. The internet is filled with sites for playing these games that use much better interfaces than a wiki. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:19, 9 November 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.