Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Death By Jimbo

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 15:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Death By Jimbo

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

an attempt at humour that had its corresponding template removed in 2010. Jimbo no longer has the power to ban users or take appeals; page seems to just stand as misinformation now. Dawnbails (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, long outdated to the point of misinformation.  Feoffer (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't we just update the information to reflect that this was something that existed in the past, and no longer does? BD2412  T 02:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like this is an exception-- the article is less of an "essay" and more of a humour attempt that doesn't (and didn't back then) work too well. "Death By Jimbo" as far as I can see didn't really exist in general and is more of just a joke made by one editor, so I don't see any value in keeping it for historical purposes. the essay's only legitimate presence on Wikipedia is in other people's automatic lists of essays/XfDs (and one list of shortcuts) so I don't think any harm will come out of the removal of the page. Dawnbails (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any other place in Wikipedia that reports the historical fact of Jimbo once having had the power to ban users? If so, redirecting would work just as well. BD2412  T 03:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * if I'm not mistaken, I believe Role of Jimmy Wales mentions his original permissions. Dawnbails (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It does. Redirect to Role of Jimmy Wales, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-R. Harmless as a redirect. BD2412  T 03:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think this'd be a better alternative. Dawnbails (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, updated, as done. Do not delete history, document it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the update, but I still wonder whether a page separate from Role of Jimmy Wales is really needed. The updated content can be merged there. BD2412  T 05:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Better to have updated the page immediately on seeing it out of date, even if it is soon later merged.  By “keep” I mean “do not delete”.  No prejudice against organising things better.  I see no reason to preserve the humour. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I still believe that this page is rather unnecessary given the existence of Role of Jimmy Wales. I agree with BD2412's decision of redirecting there instead of leaving this page for no particular reason. Dawnbails (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is history of a perception of Jimbo’s authority. That might be much, but it is not nothing.  Preserve it in the history of the redirect. Redirect to Role of Jimmy Wales.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no history to save. It's just a failed attempt at humor with a side dish of misunderstanding. I hope there is no "Death by Arbcom" or any similar silliness and this should join them. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think we should be linking "Death by Jimbo" to an information page. If someone wants to re-purpose WP:DBJ into a new humorous essay then they are free to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. It isn't even funny, if it was ever meant to be. Just some long-ago editor's lame attempt at original thought.  — Maile  (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Role of Jimmy Wales per BD2412. This is not a humorous essay.—Alalch E. 23:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No need to merge this made-up term and hypothesized implications (which would have been wrong long before 2022) any more than wild other speculation or a redirect called Death By (Insert Other Admin's Name).  If there's truly, truly a desire to preserve any and all history, then second choice is Userfy -> redirect from userspace -> delete the Wikipedia-space redirect.  SnowFire (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I briefly thought that, but decided it was unworthy of the attention already. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Windbaggery to follow below. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You ever drive into a neighborhood and pass by an old, run-down shack; the wood's rotting, the windows are blown out, the whole house seems to be grooved and sagging into the ground (probably due to a sinkhole) only to find out that the site has been marked as historical? So nothing will ever change, it'll just sit there and continue to be an eye-sore. Some areas merit historical preservation for important cultural purposes. Other times, it may be applied a bit too liberally or aggressively by those resistant to change on areas which don't really merit the trouble. In reading all of the responses above and of course the page itself, I think this is one of those instances of the latter. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as a rather useless attempt at humor. I see no point in keeping this. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 18:43, 2 September 2023 (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.