Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World citizens
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 both, no reasons for keeping based in policies or guidelines. --Coredesat 07:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World citizens
- Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World citizens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Wikipedia:Wikipedian citizens of the world (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – bundled with this nomination
Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It is also not a soapbox or venue for propaganda and advertising. Nor is it a vehicle for achieving social justice, world peace, world domination, or any other noble or evil goal except the creation of something so big, so powerful, and so awe-inspiring, that it will crush any who dare stand in its path. (I suppose a little evil every now and then can't hurt.)
This is a page for those who, among other things, "wish to identify themselves first and foremost as human beings", "work for a reformed, strengthened, yet sufficiently decentralized United Nations which represents and responds to the will of the people of the world and adheres to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and "work toward other developments to strengthen a common identity and harmony between our fellow world citizens on the planet". All are noble desires and causes, but not relevant to fostering encyclopedic collaboration. It is not a WikiProject. Delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(Note 1: I have nothing against world citizenship. In fact, given the criteria, I qualify for inclusion on the list.)
(Note 2: See deletion discussions concerning similar pages here and here.)
(Note 3: The category corresponding to these lists was deleted per a consensus reached at a deletion discussion here. ... WARNING: page is nearly 700 KB long)
(Note 4: Please do not take anything written in this nomination personally or, for that matter, all too seriously ... including this sentence.)
- Strong keep. I don't see why wikipedians, could not identify themselves as World citizens, as it is an information on their characteristics, and in particular their situation as contributors or users of a global encyclopedy, and therefore I disagree that it is "not relevant to fostering encyclopedic collaboration" --Pgreenfinch 08:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedians can identify themselves as world citizens ... on their userpages. As for the second point, how is it relevant to collaboration (not a rhetorical question, by the way)? People vary on thousands of characteristics and most of them are not relevant to building an encyclopedia. There's hair colour, eye colour, height, partisan affiliations, allergies, food preferences, favourite colour, and many more. Wikipedia (especially the non-user namespaces) is not a vehicle for advancing one's social/political beliefs or for creating lists of Wikipedians by one of thousands of possible characteristics. If self-identifying as a world citizen is indeed relevant to encyclopedic collaboration, what group of articles is it relevant to? Also, the fact that the more up-to-date category for "world citizens" was deleted suggests that there is limited or no encyclopedic merit to these lists. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't know if Diderot and the lot who created the Encyclopedia talked much about their hair colour, but that they self-identified as world citizens seems to me rather obvious and also quite relevant to encyclopedic collaboration. That also answers the observation of User:Leebo about "organizing persons who share a particular belief set that is not directly related to editing this online encyclopedia". I don't see any belief that is more related than that one to this cooperative work made by people from the whole planet for people of the whole planet. To delete that article would be a negation of what Wikipedia stand for. --Pgreenfinch 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The page isn't just "hey, let's all be human beings with no borders and write information that all people can use for free," in which case it would still be redundant and simply a definition of Wikipedia. This is a page for listing users who have a particular set of beliefs, including specific real-world political beliefs concerning the United Nations. With that it becomes something that Wikipedia is not: a group of people organizing themselves on Wikipedia outside of the context of article editing. Leebo T/C 17:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't know if Diderot and the lot who created the Encyclopedia talked much about their hair colour, but that they self-identified as world citizens seems to me rather obvious and also quite relevant to encyclopedic collaboration. That also answers the observation of User:Leebo about "organizing persons who share a particular belief set that is not directly related to editing this online encyclopedia". I don't see any belief that is more related than that one to this cooperative work made by people from the whole planet for people of the whole planet. To delete that article would be a negation of what Wikipedia stand for. --Pgreenfinch 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedians can identify themselves as world citizens ... on their userpages. As for the second point, how is it relevant to collaboration (not a rhetorical question, by the way)? People vary on thousands of characteristics and most of them are not relevant to building an encyclopedia. There's hair colour, eye colour, height, partisan affiliations, allergies, food preferences, favourite colour, and many more. Wikipedia (especially the non-user namespaces) is not a vehicle for advancing one's social/political beliefs or for creating lists of Wikipedians by one of thousands of possible characteristics. If self-identifying as a world citizen is indeed relevant to encyclopedic collaboration, what group of articles is it relevant to? Also, the fact that the more up-to-date category for "world citizens" was deleted suggests that there is limited or no encyclopedic merit to these lists. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for groups to organize persons who share a particular belief set that is not directly related to editing this online encyclopedia -- whatever those beliefs may be. Leebo T/C 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this is not an attempt to collaborate to improve articles. Wikipedians can identify as world citizens on their userpage (indeed many do), but there is no reason to categorise them because of it - indeed a related category was recently deleted. Hut 8.5 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do the same thing here as is decided to do to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by culture, for consistency. — The Storm Surfer 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong analogy with culture, in my opinion. Also nothing to do with "United Nations, a specific organisation, to refer to another user observation. This article cannot be compared with others. Also the suppression of the related category was done expeditively without real wikipedian debate and on the base of a superficial analogy. I insist that to suppress this article would negate the Wikipedian spirit, whatever the formal, not to say bureaucratic, rules that would support such a move. --Pgreenfinch 09:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above--SefringleTalk 06:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not too convinced by the shallow formal arguments, I start to perceive some hostility to world citizenship, rather surprising for Wikipedians. --Pgreenfinch 07:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- There is no hostility to world citizenship. As the nominator points out, several similar pages have also been deleted this way. Hut 8.5 09:34, 12 July 2007 (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.
