Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/List of Everyone Who Has Ever Lived (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ( Radiant ) 08:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Kmweber/List of Everyone Who Has Ever Lived
This page was nominated for deletion last year; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/List of Everyone Who Has Ever Lived. I believe that this is an inapropriate use of userspace because it does not contribute to building the encyclopedia (since Wikipedia is not a directory) and is instead using our servers to host an unrelated project in violation of policy and guidelines. Eluchil404 08:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to be lenient. Let's give Kmweber a couple more weeks to try to complete this. Only delete it if it doesn't list everyone by then. Grutness...wha?  09:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; userspace should not be used to host articles which do not meet notability requirements, especially when (as in this case) the complete article would probably end up larger than all other articles combined. —Psychonaut 11:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain I don't really see any encyclopedic value to this, but then userspace is not articlespace, and should not be expected to conform to the standards of usefulness we expect of articles. Cynical 12:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There are plenty of free wiki's, why use one that has a limited scope? Everyone Who Has Ever Live is not encyclopedic. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So what? It's in user-space, not article-space.  Kurt Weber 17:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So this is not the place for it, that is so what. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - woefully incomplete. I'm not even listed yet. I know wikipedia is not paper, but that isn't justification for something that is this clearly impossible. Badbilltucker 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That a list is incomplete is no reason to delete it in article-space; it's certainly no reason to delete it in user-space. Kurt Weber 17:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is a pointless and never be incomplete list. --Ter e nce Ong (C 15:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. If this were in article space, I would say strong delete. But the user has in his own name space, he is active, and does not have too much in his own user space which is unrelated to the poject. Even so, if he even got .01% done with his project, this could be a real sinkhole of WP resources. Jcam 15:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Y'all seem to think my intention is to move this to article space. I have no such intention.  It's just something I did on a lark one day after a discussion in the #wikipedia IRC channel about absurdly large lists.  It's perfectly harmless; leave it alone.  And "resource usage" is a non-issue; that's not our concern but the Wikimedia Foundation's, and as Jimbo himself has said, "there is plenty of disk space"--and even a list of 1% of 1% of the maybe 20 billion people who have ever lived, if we assume, say, 50 characters per name, is only 100 megabytes.  Really, my suggestion here is: lighten up, and don't worry about things that don't actually matter.
 * Per [{WP:UP]]: "Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." So, is this page "disruptive" or a hindrance to actual work?  Hardly  Also, see the arguments on the original MfD.
 * Finally, I would like to suggest that in the future, when User:Eluchil404 nominates a userspace page on MfD, he notify the particular user that this has been done. Kurt Weber 17:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This was a failure on my part and I appologise. Eluchil404 04:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. --Improv 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you can cite policies by rote. Now, how about explaining how it's relevant to this page?  Kurt Weber 18:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Things done that are irrelevant to the project but participatory are social networking, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. It may be interesting to do this kind of thing (especially as a family tree site or something), but it would be better if you found a different spot for it. --Improv 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand the policy. It's not saying that social association is outright verboten--it's simply a reminder that Wikipedia is not the place for social gathering or networking for its own sake.  Social projects that serve to assist users, to help resolve disputes, to demonstrate ideas, or simply to give people a place to blow off steam or calm down a bit are perfectly acceptable.  Kurt Weber 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's userspace. No less appropriate than many user subpages. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. per quadell, weber, etc. the content is useless perhaps humorous, at best.  as long as it also remains harmless, I see no proint in singling it out for deletion. &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 18:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per wikipedia is not a free webhost, social networking site etc. and recent arbitration case - "user subpages may be used to hold "a work in progress, until it is ready to be released". This does not allow users to use the user namespace to store pages that would be deleted from the main encyclopedia or tendentious forks of articles therein" --pgk 19:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it in context, please. If you interpret that to mean that there may be no pages in userspace that would be deleted in mainspace, that would mean that individual sandboxes, essays, and indeed the user pages themselves should all be deleted.  Clearly, that's absurd.  What they're referring to is when a user writes an article that he would like to put in the mainspace, but knows it wouldn't stand a chance--in other words, using userspace to deliberately circumvent the restrictions of mainspace.  That's not the case here.  I didn't put it in my userspace because I was trying to circumvent namespace restrictions--I put it there because THAT'S WHERE IT BELONGS.  Kurt Weber 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is in context, user space is not an excuse to avoid the scrutiny of mainspace. Your suggestion is that by not putting it into mainspace in the first place, then you can somehow avoid that "rule". The ruling which is linked refers back to WP:USER and the guides there for acceptable usage of user space, which in my opinion this falls out of, as to your talking about sandboxes etc. you seem to conveniently ignore the "work in progress" part,  I would consider a sandbox to be such a working area, if on the other hand I created a page called User:Pgk/MySandbox and used it to hold my blog(say) then yes, I couldn't protect it by saying, but it's my sandbox... --pgk 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Struck through most of the above since I clearly didn't read your response properly. I believe it is in context, the arbcom ruling is refering to pages unaccepable under WP:USER. Your contention is that you aren't trying to avoid mainspace scrutiny by keeping it in user space, I have no reason to disbelieve your sincerity in that, however I do believe that is the net effect. I don't believe it comes under reasonable user space usage. --pgk 23:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Those arbritration members really have a way with words. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This would be a noble endeavor to pursue on a page strictly devoted to it. However, as has been pointed out, Wikipedia is not free web space.  If every one of the users on this site felt entitled to 50MB of space for their userpage alone, we'd be talking about 137,585,400 MB of server room. (per stats as of 19:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)).  I think we can all agree that this is simply too much.  I'd propose that the user take up this project on a page he/she owns and provide a link on his/her userpage. →Bobby ← 19:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, as I noted above, resource-usage is not an argument for deletion at all. "We have plenty of disk space."--Jimbo Wales.  There are a few arguments that are at least somewhat rooted in policy and thus can be taken seriously.  This is not one of them.  Kurt Weber 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not quite as true as it once was, and more importantly, the more people try to use Wikipedia for things patently unrelated to our project, the more resources are used. We *do* face serious issues with server costs (and are about to start another round of fundraising for that). Wikipedia isn't your personal webspace - we do have resource limitations. Why don't you run this on your webpage? --Improv 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it IS related to Wikipedia. That it has survived MfD in the past, and that several established users contribute to it on a somewhat regular basis, is evidence that it plays a role in making Wikipedia a more enjoyable place to work for many editors.  Kurt Weber 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a private joke more than any sort of article to me, but it's not hurting anything. It's going to be taking up some miniscule amount of server space regardless of whether we delete it or not, and deleting people's user sub-pages which are not actively hurtful does more harm by annoying them than it does good. --tjstrf talk 05:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, pointless even in userspace Jaranda wat's sup 05:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I supported keeping this last time, as a didactic lesson in "What not to write at Wikipedia", and because it's cute; but, since then, I've seen way too much junk accumulating in userspace. I don't think this page sets the best example for new folks who might find it, and it is useless otherwise.  We've been tightening the standard for good-faith users keeping clearly un-encyclopedic material in userspace, so I don't feel traditional courtesy overrides the bad perceptions that this page helps to promulgate. Xoloz 17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sorry. Wikipedia can never be perfect, but the scope of this page is completely, devastatingly, leave-it-to-government-censuses sort of unachievable.
 * Keep It's often occurred to me, when removing non-notable additions to lists of people, and people born on this day, that year, whatever, that it might be both humorous and helpful to suggest to new editors that they add their name (and the name of their child, etc.) to a list of everyone in the world. If this list remains, it could actually be useful in that context. Dina 23:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but why does it have to be on wikipedia. The mediawiki software is freely available for anyone who wants to start such a project. But why does it need to be on a project that is making an encyclopedia? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, it doesn't really have to be anywhere -- yet people, for some reason (and lots of people) seem to have a compulsion to add their names to lists here. It's not my only reason for the keep, I also agree that as it exists in userspace, (and has an arguable real purpose, as I suggest) it ought to be given a pass here. Dina 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - something done on a lark, with no demonstrable (or even asserted, near as I can tell) encyclopedic value, and the potential to be a massive waste of time and resources, doesn't pass muster for me. I wouldn't even comment here except I'm surprised at the number of keeps. -- nae'blis 00:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete None of my friends are on it. And it is not useful to developing the encyclopedia.-- danntm T C 17:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's fine in userpace, not really bothering anybody. If someone can tell me why it's harmful - I understand that that's not a general standard, but I think it's relevant in this case - I'd consider changing my vote. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete it is not useful to developing the encyclopedia, per Psychonaut, Terence Ong and Jcam. Although if only one person is building this list is a weak delete, but this enables others to make the same huge list (or similar) to their user space possibly leading to massive usage of wikipedia disk space and resources. feydey 13:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's in userspace, for goodness sake! Ab e g92 contribs 16:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am wondering if people have read WP:UP? ...you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia(emphasis from original). People often confuse userspace for general hosting, it is not, there are plenty of general hosting wikis out there. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Why is this useful to an online encyclopedia? I certainly don't see it. Even if it is in userspace, that makes no difference. So if I made an article (in my userspace) that listed all my real life friends where you could contact them and their personal lives, would that not be deleted? Just because it's in userspace? I don't think so... --  K  yo cat   (Talk) 02:10, 19 November 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.