Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/List of Everyone Who Has Ever Lived


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 01:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Kmweber/List of Everyone Who Has Ever Lived
Inappropriate use of Wikipedia User space. Kmweber is well known for his repeated contention that Wikipedia should have an article on everyone who has ever existed, and an article on every theory that has ever been uttered, even if only first uttered on Wikipedia. This is an extreme example of WP:POINT. Surely Kmweber can find another site for this list. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Wow. This defies all notions of WP:NOT. Tito xd (?!?) 00:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, also as per WP:NOT. This might be an interesting project, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. Perhaps Kmweber might want to talk to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who are interested in this sort of project? -- The Anome 00:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * WikiTree is one place for editors interested in compiling the family forest of humankind. Uncle G 00:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete A valiant project that is doomed to failure, and not one needed here - although with the rate Wikipedia is expanding, who knows what may happen one day? BTW, am I the only one who instantly thought of Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged? Grutness...wha?  00:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Free-content and potentially wp-article-linked list in user space; what policy does this violate?  Surely it would be inappropriate as an article, but it seems like a fine private project, and is not 'disrupting Wikipedia' a la WP:POINT. +sj + 08:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, ludicrous. Also very ironic that he is proud of having listed over a hundred people who have ever lived. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC) On second thought, this page is pointless but hardly worth the discussion given its low visibility. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  10:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is complete nonsense. --romanm (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, was on AFD once already too with consensus to userfy, if memory serves. It's in userspace now too. Finally, concur with Sj. Kim Bruning 04:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Taking a break from a Wiki-break to voice support for this. Mr. Weber may be trying to make a point, but he isn't disrupting WP to do it -- he's using his user-space to test one possible model for what an encyclopedia could be.  The woeful incompleteness of this page proves, to me, that an ultra-inclusive model is very flawed.  Maintaining this page serves as an example of why such a standard is a bad idea, in my view; for Mr. Weber, it continues to serve as an example of what-could-be.  Fine, but it is useful to us both.  If this is deleted, someone else will one day, quite innocently, come up with the same idea.  Mr. Weber was first -- let his serve as an experimental model for all WPians to see both the potential, and the myriad problems, presents by a catalog that might expand to six billion.  My vote might be different if this were killing the servers, mind you, but this is a relatively short list. Xoloz 06:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This defies all notions of WP:NOT, and is complete nonsense. But it's in userspace. I believe that despite the idiosyncratic interpretation of what's "encyclopedic", this is a good faith page.  Meaning that it doesn't intend to disrupt wikipedia, only that if it gets to .00001% of it's possible size, that it will disrupt wikipedia when the servers explode and the shards kill our only paid employee.  But no reason to delete right now. -  brenneman (t) (c)  07:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Userspace has permitted markedly weirder stuff. No one will consider his experiment offensive, only silly, and I don't believe even a naive Googler could mistake it for a serious article. Deco 04:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite my comments on the talk page, I see no problem with his attempted determination. &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 08:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not going to vote either way, as this is in userspace, but it does seem that even Kmweber has lost interest in this. He has not edited this page since October 6, 2004. "Your Mom" has been added to the list, and no one has yet removed it, so I do not think this page will be very active in any case. - Pure  blade  | ☼ 22:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - perfectly harmless. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 22:47, 29 November 2005 (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.