Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/hall of fame

(At 3.55 am UTC, May 6, this page was changed to a redirect.)
 * Hall of fame is nothing more than a personal attack on Wik. His user page may be out of order but creating pages about it does not help the situation. Angela. 21:14, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, or redirect to the barnstar image. --Michael Snow 21:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete if the bitch list on Wik's insult user page is also deleted, keep otherwise. Anárion 21:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Wik can do what he wants on his user page, as long as he doesn't disrupt the rest of the Wikipedia (thus the crucial distinction between that and "Wikisex"). Other users can as well--if the author wants to go on an anti-Wik polemic at his user page, he's welcome.  That doesn't mean this belongs in the Wikipedia namespace. Meelar 21:32, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Jimbo has hard banned at least one user for what he did on his user page, so saying he can do whatever he wants is not true. anthony (see warning)
 * But within the bounds of "Don't disrupt Wikipedia", it's pretty wide-open. Meelar 01:38, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, Wik's user page is currently being decided by the arbitration committee, so we'll see what they have to say about it. anthony (see warning)
 * In my opinion, it's pretty hard to reconcile your notion of "don't disrupt Wikipedia" with the clear prohibition of personal attacks. Cribcage 03:25, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how it constitutes a personal attack, and it's a somewhat funny text (although I doubt that many Wikipedians use the nickname, or that there is any basis for the "by most users" claim), but it certainly doesn't belong in this namespace (nor in any other I can think of). -- Jao 21:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Samuel J. Howard 21:47, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a personal attack (I removed the "special person" comment, which I did not write). Humor at Wik's expense? Yeah. I think if you put an enemies-list in public view, you expose yourself to being made fun of for it. This certainly was not intended as an "anti-Wik polemic"; I don't even know the guy. Mike Church 00:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * What reason is there for keeping this? It only encourages people to make similar pages for any user they don't like. This is a violation of wikiquette and a completely unsuitable use of Wikipedia. Angela. 01:22, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't dislike Wik, and
 * I don't see how this is a personal attack. Mike Church 02:01, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. anthony (see warning)
 * Delete. Purely point-of-view, non-encyclopedic, damaging to the community. Dpbsmith 01:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Dimly funny, however. BJAODN? Snowspinner 05:54, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a grudge match (user pages excepted) Denni 07:52, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
 * Why not move to a subpage of Mike Church's user page. Then it's in the user namespace the same as Wik's theresa knott 11:08, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Good idea Theresa, but if Mike wants this in his user space, he can put it there himself. Mixed feelings as to whether he should. Andrewa 14:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless, boring. Recommend against moving it into user space. Let's put the resources of WP to good use, please. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:59, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought it was amusing, albeit esoteric in a Wikinsider kind of way. Move to Mike Church's userspace. Alcarillo 21:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. All these shenanigans about Wik's list are more irritating than the list itself. john 22:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though it did make me laugh. -- EuroTom 02:10, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apart from the fact its hilarious, its also true - although it could be made slightly less POV. Do I get 2 votes because I'm actually in the "Hall of Fame" ? --Gene_poole 02:11, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. For the record, however, I think the contrast between the indignant objections to this content and the tame, polite response that was given to Wik's offensive list of personal attacks is outrageous. Cribcage 03:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)