Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicious cycle


 * Vicious cycle already exists at m:Wikipedia Vicious Cycle. Angela. 22:42, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article was copied here shortly after it was listed for deletion on the meta.  It doesn't belong in either place.  UninvitedCompany 22:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. Both are marked for deletion.  I have no idea whether one of them is allowed or both are considered naughty.  ;o)  --bodnotbod 22:50, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * If it belongs anywhere, it's on meta, not here. Delete -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:58, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whether or not it is deleted from meta, it's a meta page, not a Wikipedia: page. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 23:50, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a valid and interesting analysis of what has been going wrong with Wikipedia over recent months, and puts forward positive suggestions for how the deterioration can be reversed.  GrahamN 00:51, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same reasons as UninvitedCompany gave. --mav 00:59, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Question:Is it only admins who are supposed to create pages in the Wikipedia namespace? Or is it open to all? --bodnotbod 01:09, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is open to all. The fact that a user feels the need to ask this question demonstrates how far the egalitarian culture of Wikipedia has been undermined in recent months.  GrahamN 01:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * No, all it shows is GrahamN's repeated need to show that he favors anon edits and vandalism over people who have been here for a while and prefer to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia instead of a joke. RickK 15:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have your historical perspective being so new, but it raises my eyebrows at considering the possibilities ;o) --bodnotbod 02:20, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Anybody can edit pages in the Wikipedia namespace. The problem with creating such pages is that it makes it difficult for new users to find the information they need amidst all the garbage. Everybody, including admins, should be discouraged from creating new pages in the Wikipedia namespace unless the content is needed and doesn't fit in with an existing page. --Michael Snow 04:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maximus Rex 01:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons already stated. Besides, a cycle feeds into itself. This describes a one-way flow.  "Vicious exodus?"  The growth of the Wikipedia says otherwise.  SWAdair | Talk  02:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Pardon my "Captain Obvious" POV, but this whole Wikipedia thing is open content. Changes come, changes go.  This article, on the other hand, is a pretty good indication of what happens when we don't play well with others.  I believe in the project and I'm having a great time with it beyond hanging out at the VfD page.  Hey, there are four billion other websites.  Pick one...and please delete for reasons already stated. - Lucky 6.9 03:39, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice. The appropriate place for such discussions is Meta. If you want to argue its merits, go there. --Michael Snow 04:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree.  My previous comments were directed to the person who wrote the article.  Sorry if it didn't come across properly. - Lucky 6.9 06:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Basically a defence of trolling, and a subtle attack on sysops. The project namespace is not the place for it. I expect it will eventually be deleted from the Meta too, unless someone refactors it so that the issues are raised in a constructive way. But that's a discussion for the Meta. Andrewa 14:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Decumanus | Talk 15:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cribcage 03:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)