Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles (2nd nomination)

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 for deletion here. Additionally, please feel free to edit the page per the suggestions in the MFD.. Navou banter 16:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View MfD#1)

OK, this page does have some utility, in that I found, for example, User:Adobebooks whose sole contribution was Adobe Books, and so on, but looking down the list the majority of these do not appear to be Wikipedians with articles, but article subjects with Wikipedia accounts - with edits only to their own article and user space. Tagging the talk page of an article with your username is fine, and it's interesting to note active wikipedians who have articles (e.g. User:Elonka), but I really don't see any utility in listing people like User:GODDESSY who has no edits other than to p(r)imp her own article. What this list does, to my jaded eye, is encourage people to list themselves and make an article on themselves. Apart from that it has no obvious use. It was nominated before and attracted such compelling arguments as "Strong keep as destroying articles in an encylopedia is equivalent to burning books, or, at least, to ripping off pages from a book". Er, right. The COI monitoring function is now fulfilled by WP:COIN. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Related categories, templates, etc.:
Some distantly related pages:
-- Jreferee (Talk) 22:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Prune. Some of the editors are nonconstructive, highly inactive, or have been banned. I believe these entries should be removed, but the more constructive editors should be kept. Maybe there might be a question that you'd need to ask to an expert. Whatever the case, if keeping an entry has potential constructive benefit, then by all means we should do so. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a category... Guy (Help!) 21:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because there is a category, doesn't mean that a list is inappropriate, or vice versa. See also: WP:CLS. - jc37 08:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I like this page as I find it interesting to know that I potentially can talk with a notable person when ever I like through our Wikipedia connection. There are more than 1000 pages that link to this page. I went to notify the top contributors of Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles listed at Stats about this MfD. The #1 contributor User:Pinktulip and #3 contributor User:Fplay have been blocked indefinitely as being sock puppet of Amorrow. The #4 contributor, User:-Barry- recently was indefinitely banned from editing Perl by ArbCom. All I have to say is, "Bummer." - Jreferee (Talk) 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - more trouble than it's worth. Tom Harrison Talk 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not think that this adds to the encyclopedia. All that it does is encourage people to make articles about themselves. In most cases editors are not notable enough to have an article about themselves on wikipedia.--SJP 22:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think alarmist objections that bozos will begin creating worthless autobiographical articles in order to insinuate themselves into this list are oveblown and not borne out by the edit history. This is not a high traffic list and only gets a few edits a month. If it's a self-promotion magnet, it's not a particularly efficient one. I see this as a harmless and fascinating bit of wiki trivia. I'd like, however, to see subject headings that divide these people into "active editors," "editors who were previously active" and "editors who were never really active".--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - It really serves very little purpose. As Guy said, there will be people who actually edit AND have their own article, but there are so few we don't need to devote a page to it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Potential for vanity or for harassment, and no benefits to the encyclopaedia that are sufficient to override those two concerns. ElinorD (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Checking up on potential conflicts is harassment? That's a strange new meaning of "harassment" I was previously unaware of. --Calton | Talk 07:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Could I suggest that if you don't understand someone's post, you try to ask for clarification without resorting to sarcasm, which doesn't help anything? I am aware that the page has been used by trolls and by sockpuppets of banned users, to publicise their unconfirmed suspicion of the real life identity of editors who are trying to remain anonymous, regardless of whether or not the editors have ever edited the articles which are supposedly about them. In some cases, the articles had even been started by the trolls. ElinorD (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Guy seems to misunderstand the purpose, as if this were some kind of hall of fame. It's not, it's a one-stop COI checklist -- which WP:COIN does NOT have. --Calton | Talk 07:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Guy and Elinor. This page is far too subject to arbitrary influences to have much relevance beyond curiosity, certainly not enough to outweigh the potential for abuse. Cary Bass demandez 14:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as this article a) is totally superfluous as those Wikipedians that have an article are famous (in the real world outside of WP) not for being Wikipedians but for some other accomplishment - Jimbo being an exception but he alone doesn't justify this list; b) the page has been used for trolling and stalking, with trolls making unconfirmed speculation about editors' identities. Str1977 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a one-stop COI list, as Calton pointed out, not a hall of fame. -- Zanimum 16:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant to Category:Notable Wikipedians. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as users are using it as a COI checklist. It is not necessary to delete a page for a few offending entries, as you can simply remove them with your edit button. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Titoxd and Zanimum. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - I'm still holding out hope that someone can cite a good policy/guideline based reason to keep this page. A one-stop COI list seems a fairly good reason (and that is the one I am adopting for closing purposes), but begs the question of how often it is used for COI. Troll magnet doesn't cut it as a reason to keep. The page is in project namespace and Wikipedia:Project_namespace#Guidelines does not seem to address this particular situation. Can someone cite to a policy/guideline, ect. that might cover this situation. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedians with articles is a tool referenced by the Username policy to monitor inappropriate usernames. See Username policy. Wikipedians with articles is used in the Wikipedia:Autobiography guideline to advise those creating articles about themselves. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Wikipedians with articles is used in the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline to put into context the role being a Wikipedian plays in the Notability guideline. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). Use of the impersonal Category:Notable Wikipedians in these policies and guidelines would not seem to have the same impact or convey enough information as the more user-friendly Wikipedians with articles. A one-stop COI list seems a fairly good reason as well. Also, it helps make Wikipedia reputation better if people see that all these experts on various fields actually are editing Wikipedia. In addition, the page may work to encourage reputable experts in many fields to come here and leave a name in this list of record since other similar prominent people have their user name in this list. Perhaps rename to Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by notable Wikipedians (to go along with the name change of Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia to Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by the media) -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by notable people"? I really feel you have to identify with Wikipedia, and contribute properly, to be considered a "Wikipedian". -- Zanimum 13:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You have missed the point rather. These are not notable Wikipedians, these are, in the main, people who've created an article on themselves and nothing else. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I don't think I need to repeat the reasons of usefulness stated by those above. As is, the page does what it's intended to do. Though I obviously wouldn't oppose someone being bold and refactoring a bit, per some suggestions above. - jc37 08:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it useful, informative, and conducive to an honest approach towards COI. DGG (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Too much potential for vanity and abuse. Next would be a list of 'Distruptive Wikipedians', or maybe 'Religious Wikipedians' – a very slippery slope. Crum375 12:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:COIN is an incidents-in-progress page, it is not a replacement for this list. COI typically doesn't make it onto COIN until an active edit dispute is taking place. --carlb 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete we already have Category:Notable Wikipedians and others. Definite abuse issues.--MONGO 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep After looking at this article, I realized that some notable people contributed for Wikipedia. Some non-notable names should be deleted. However, the article should not be deleted. RS1900 06:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This really doesn't do any good and has the potential of encouraging someone who is definitely not notable to write an article about himself or herself. Captain panda 03:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep!!!! It's important to keep, because then we'll know which famous person registered here as what name, so this is to prevent the famous people to be impersonated. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 08:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Useful page as has been said before. -- Roleplayer 11:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep agreeing with Jreferee. Acalamari 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but prune the page so that Wikipedians who have made a certain number of edits outside their user space and the articles about themselves or entities that they are involved with are the focus of this page, and perhaps make another page of people with a Wikipedia account who have only made changes to their article, user page, etc. Q0 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be very opposed to deleting Category:Notable Wikipedians, and the associated Template:Notable Wikipedian because they provide a useful tracking function. Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles is redundant and not needed. - Jehochman Talk 10:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and maybe fork. Agree that it's really more of a "People who have edited their own Wikipedia articles, usually for bad-faith reasons" page, but that's actually not a bad page to have. I wouldn't be averse to splitting off a page for genuine Wikipedians, but I honestly don't see why we would delete the whole thing. WP:COIN is a functional tool for reporting and preventing COI edits; this page is (partially) an historical archive of such edits. < eleland // talkedits > 15:34, 23 September 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.