Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:21655/.01 Cabal/Awaiting Approval


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 Keep. — xaosflux  Talk  03:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:21655/.01 Cabal/Awaiting Approval
This is a wholly inappropriate bureaucratic piece for a cabal. Users need to be elected in, essentially, by members of the cabal. I don't see how this is appropriate for a cabal, of all things. Note: This is not a nomination for the cabal itself (I'm still on the fence about that one), but rather, for its approval process. Metros (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't see the problem.  Let them deal with things however they want.  And I don't see a problem with the cabal itself, for that matter.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The cabal is not causing any problems and is dedicted to fighting vandalism. Prospective members need to be vandal fighters with a clean record as Wikipedia editors in order to be accepted into the cabal. I don't see any problems with that. Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 20:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a cabal, and should be doing it their way. (Note: I am in the .01 Cabal) LegoKontribsTalkM 22:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Legoktm comment. Alexnia (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Either nom. the whole thing or none - the partial nom doesn't make sense to me (and the "inappropriate bureaucratic piece for a cabal" didn't help).  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We have had too many past problems with groups of wpedians being known as cabals. We have furthermore with respect to other so calledgroups in the past strongly decided that closed groups are not acceptable on wikipedia. I don't care how good their purpose. There are are enough active task groups of various sorts. A terrible precedent.  DGG (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Being overly bureaucratic is part of the fun of a cabal. At least they don't require you to drink the blood of a virgin like that other cabal (oh what a mistake that was... err... I mean... hey look over there!) -- Ned Scott 02:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let cabals be, as long as they're not hurting then there's no reason to delete them. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 13:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me, the idiot behind this whole thing, to step in, but Elucidate has a point. Then again, so does DGG, although I wasn't around to witness any of these problems (not that it really matters).  21655  ταλκ / 01ҁ 17:02, 6 November 2008 (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.