Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wekepedians' notice board

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wekepedians' notice board

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 1#Category:Wekepedians - No use, except as a dig/attack. Does not improve the project in any way, nor aim to. Creator should try to resolve edit disputes rather than escalating them and further disrupting the project. There are plenty of WikiProjects with well defined aims. /wangi 22:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Does Wikipedia want well-educated, knowledgeable and expert contributors, who know what they are writing about and are experts in their fields? If, so I suggest keeping this user category to help encourage those put off by edit attacks from people who have little knowledge of the subject matter of the contributions and insist on forcing their own private agendas onto the Wikipedia project. Quality contributors contributing quality contributions as our contribution to a quality Wikipedia is what this user category is all about! Mallimak 23:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Because of human nature, generally this will attract people who are far from any of the three, is useless, and is more a way for people to show off than do anything productive --Improv 01:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, useless. If quality users are being attacked by trolls, there is already a useful message board to post at -- WP:AN/I. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Probably ineffective at making lasting change in Wikipedia, but at worst harmless and at best may channel more effective behaviour. We are far too fast at fighting mild discontent with fire where not needed. It is not in and of itself disruptive - and how could it be, since it was just started a day ago. Now, if we see in 2 months that this page is inactive or just contains vandalism, then we might delete it then, but let's channel harmless disgruntlement rather than deleting with fire. Martinp 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, who is defining which editors are Well Educated and in which field they are Knowledgable and Expert. Nuttah68 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, bleagh, way too elitist. --Cyde↔Weys 19:44, 2 August 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.