Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/betting pools and related pages


 * 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 all. I'm sorry for newer users who may loves these pages, but Wikipedia really is an encyclopedia, not a message board or betting parlor. Discussions of this type -- even on user talk pages -- are a questionable use of Wikipedia's space. Really, this sort of thing belongs off-site. Xoloz 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/betting pools and related pages
Nomination includes Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/betting pools, Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/predictions, Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/off topic, Talk:2006 Pacific hurricane season/betting pools and Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/betting pools

Delete all. See the previous MFD on similar pages Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/May Tropical Discussion and related pages. This is listed seperately from the other similar MFD as these pages are different in nature to the Pacific discussions. Same issues though - WP:NOT a discussion forum or a crystal ball.Nilfanion (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As they say... burn with fire. Chacor 16:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete predictions and off-topic, keep betting pools. The betting pools are completely out of hand, but I would rather see them trimmed to just the most basic predictions ("# of storms, date of first storm, date of last storm, strongest storm") than to be deleted completely. It's just a bit of fun competition, but I wouldn't mind seeing it trimmed down a whole bunch. The trimmed down versions would just be some simple predictions relegated to a subpage that can foster a bit of fun, harmless competition. The predictions, on the other hand, are just ridiculous and completely out of control. I would split the off-topic half-and-half; one half is predictions, which should go, the other half is just a bit of off-topic discussion that tons of other talk pages have (and aren't deleted) and should be merged back into the talk page. However, since the whole thing would be deleted I guess it doesn't matter. bob rulz 17:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - betting pools are not remotely within what we're trying to do on the project and take us squarely into the realm of hosting hobbies unrelated to the project. --Improv 18:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - So? bob rulz 02:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with the most extreme of prejudice. Wikipedia is not Las Vegas; we do NOT need betting pools. They do not help writing a stellar article AT ALL. And predictions? Just simply not needed. Note what the NHC says and help write a good article. Don't go OMG CAT 5 IN THE GULF BY TUESDAY!!! That helps NOTHING. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, and write articles, please. Ral315 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Write articles on what? bob rulz 02:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The hurricane season. Sigh. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not in the scope of the project and IMO a bit tasteless. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Tell me. Who is it hurting? And why is it hurting them? Huh? If we get rid of pages like this, why not ban INVEST discussions and keep all talk pages strictly about the article? (sarcasm) →Cycl   one1 → 22:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. (Dead serious)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument is not "Who is it hurting?" The argument is "Is this allowed on Wikipedia?" And it isn't. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't you guys get a blog or something?Pageblank 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all for the same reasons given at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/May Tropical Discussion and related pages. Rossami (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep All. Why are we deleting talk pages? If these pages are deleted there will be overflow into the main talk pages that could mess up the articles. They're talk pages. Our opinions are supposed to go there instead of the article. How would you like it if in 2007, I just started a post that said "Predictions" and it took up tons of space that we could've used to disuss thae article. guitarhero777777 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How would we like it? The offending "Predictions" post would be removed from the talk page, per WP:NOT a message board. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Aren't the talk pages technically message boards (and on the 2006 Atlantic page every invest makes it look like one)? guitarhero777777 00:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:NOT a forum. --Ajm81 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT -- WmE 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP: NOT is for articles, not talk pages. Let people have some fun unless it disturbs the article. Although it looks like it doesn't matter. guitarhero777777 03:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You then obviously haven't read the policy page. WP:NOT applies to all of Wikipedia, as do all policies and guidelines. Chacor 03:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good God! You actually read through all that!? I don't have the time to read through all the rules and regulations (I'm not a lawyer) and if I did, I'd accidentally vandalize from falling asleep at my keyboard. But, before I hurt anyone's feelings, or am too rude I just want to ask, why take away the fun? There was no harm being done to the encyclopedia and it sure beats vandalism. But, if it is truly against the rules (whats next all NPOV on our userpage?), then delete it. It's a losing battle I'm fighting. Better cut my losses. Delete if it is 100% against policy.guitarhero777777 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't have to read through it all. The intro sums it up very simply. Userpages get more leeway, in response to your other point, but still have to follow the basic NPA and CIV policies, etc. Chacor 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm sorry if I'm not being civil about this. I'm just a little upset seeing my favorite page on this entire website go bye. But, I've cooled down. My vote is officially changed to delete per WP: NOT. guitarhero777777 04:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The decision to userfy the page may be best, as if that was MFD'd I'm sure some not involved would say "keep and stay off other's userpages". Chacor 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Now it wouldn't hurt my feeling if they were deleted since I do not visit them with any regularity, but these pages do have many positive aspects whether they are against policy or not.  First off, they keep the main talk page free of clutter.  Second, I have not seen how it is detrimental at all to the article.  Third, someone mentioned that hobby hosting shouldn't be on Wiki, well unless I missed something, and I think many of us need to be reminded that contributing here is a hobby to all of us and it should have some degree of fun to it.  If it isn't, then someone send me a W-4 to fill out so I can start to get paid for my contributions.  Fourth, they help bring the contributors to these pages together as a team, haven't any of you had team building exercises where you work that were totally unrelated to your work?  The tropical cyclone articles have some of the best contributors on this site, as can be seen as how many FA and good articles that are on the topic.  Hurricane Mitch is the current FA.  --Holderca1 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Holderca, but I'm tired of flip-floping my vote, so I won't change it. Plus, the page I wanted to keep I moved to my userpage iin case anyone wanted to bring it back. guitarhero777777 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all as soon as possible. As stated on WP:ENC and WP:NOT, Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not Las Vegas. &mdash;  Coat of Arms  ( talk )  04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in some format, whether a userpage or otherwise. I'm not convinced it's appropriate to be in the main space like this, but there's certainly no reason that it couldn't be a userpage.  I think the hurricane watchers consistently produce some the highest quality work in wikipedia and the overall community can afford to let them have conversations that are only mildly off-topic (wikipedia's not paper).  --Aranae 06:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the best work from within the tropical cyclones WikiProject actually comes from people who don't spend their time gossiping about potential storms. Chacor 08:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to check the validity of that comment, with the exception of Golbez, most of our better contributors do participate on the betting pools subpage. Even the individual that created this Mfd did. --Holderca1 10:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, theres a difference between participating in the betting pools some time ago and "spending time gossiping about potential storms". I don't engage in that past time, I'd rather do something a bit more productive!--Nilfanion (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we are confusing two different pages, the gossiping goes on the AOI page which thankfully gone. All I see on the betting pools page is a list you put your sig next to and go on your way.  I have just been refering to the betting pools pages.  --Holderca1 11:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I myself was referring to the AOIs, as I assume Aranae meant by "hurricane watchers". Betting pools don't really count as watching AOIs. Chacor 11:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to those who edit the pages pertaining to the Atlantic hurricane seasons and to related subpages. I also appreciate the discussion of the invests and weather systems that have some potential to develop into TDs on the talk pages.  A very good system has developed there that manages the input of a lot of contributors and turns it into quality product.  I would still maintain that Holderca is correct and that the betting pools include a number of the important contributors to the project.  --Aranae 20:37, 17 August 2006 (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.