Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of highly committed wikipedia editors


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypes of highly committed wikipedia editors

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Perhaps should be a CSD page, but doesn't meet any specific criteria (an argument for expanding the criteria). Article has no notability, better as a userpage (would support userfication) Shadowjams (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR & WP:SOAP or move to the user namespace as an essay. Skarebo (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Skarebo, this is purely WP:OR, with trollish intents to put it bluntly (yeah, sorry) . Antipastor (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Reconsidering comment on my part influenced by previous deleted articles of same creator) No objection if userfied. Antipastor (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Obviously not article namespace, but does it even belong elsewhere? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Of mild interest to people who might happen upon it on a user page. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - essay, unless the creator wants to work on it, in which case userfy.   pablo hablo. 10:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Destory It isn't notable. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not prudish enough.  Also, major BLP issues for wikipedia geeks. --Milowent (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably talking about this: "Another source for mirth may be that humours wikipedia vandal often appear to be more socially adept, by typically accepted standards than the editors themselves." I'm socially adept and I use the word mirth as much as possible. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy as a personal essay. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Strong delete as a personal essay that is lacking in humor and is borderline attack, per Sceptre. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignore all rules and delete under a wide interpretation of G10 Sceptre (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sceptre has a point; the essay may be a borderline attack page on Wikipedia editors in general. I may come back to this tomorrow and change my non-vote. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy, someone's meditations on editing Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Userify Somebody trying to crack a joke at Wikipedia expense and simultaneously drum up popular support for said joke in a rather recursive fashion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * wpify or userfy as humorous UltraMagnusspeak 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * comment: I already copied it to my userspace, albeit an earlier rev: User:Riffraffselbow/Stereotypes_of_highly_commited_wikipedia_editors Riffraffselbow (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as not funny enough. Ben Kidwell (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree: too unfunny to even be on WP-space. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to similar article If this is preserved it indicates wikipedians are open to criticism. If it is deleted the discussion will be preserved and it will indicate the opposite. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Question for Zacherystaylor: How is the article in question appropriate for an encyclopedia?  Whether or not Wikipedia editors are open to criticism, this discussion is about the article, which comes across as a personal essay of opinion. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be a place to discuss this if an article is not the best one the discussion that Jimmy Wales and Michael Snow called for might be a better one. here is a link to their letter for anyone who wants to participate: http://volunteer.wikimedia.org/ My opinion of committed wikipedia editors isn't the same as the article describes some of them are very fgood but others not so much. This does need to be addressed if wikipedia is going to be a sucess in the long run, otherwise it will be just another politically correct view of reality based on the biases of the editors which we may not choose to call biases. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe an academic study can help: Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded. But I wonder, how many Wikipedians are looking for sources for this article. Maybe the report is right...--71.68.223.231 (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC) — 71.68.223.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Merge to either some article like Academic studies about Wikipedia, or somehow a spinoff Wikipedia subsection of the parent Wikipedia. Some cleanup is definitely needed. Becomes notable if considered as part of a larger discussion on wikipedia editors somewhere somehow. I am happy to userfy it for someone. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 19 October 2009 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.