Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep--Aervanath (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedians
While I understand (and appreciate) the sentiment behind this page, I think the deceased and the community are better served by using individuals' user pages rather than a project-space page. It leads to battles over sourcing (over whether someone's verifiably dead). And there is also a subjective nature to who is "notable" enough to qualify for the page which seems rather callous. I suggest "splitting" the page into the various users' user pages and then deleting the project-space page (or marking it historical). --MZMcBride (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Deprecate as it stands
 * 1) It is a BLP disaster waiting to happen, particularly as people are insisting on retaining material that's unverified on the basis of "we trust the users who told us". The sourcing for various entries is very slippery. How long before we get a hurtful hoax.
 * 2) The potential for damage is not worth it when there's no benefit to the project.
 * 3) Wikipedians are not notable in themselves, and the project is too big for anyone but a small hard core ever to have met, never mind "remember" any or many of the deceased.
 * 4) It is not limited in scope to this project. How can we maintain a page for people from "all wikipedias"?

Options 1) Delete outright (userfying as nominator suggests) OR 2) Move to meta - and insist only entries with hard off-wiki sources. --Scott Mac (Doc) 10:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: Scott Mac (Doc) has made a ton of accusations with regards to Deceased Wikipedians. As the editor who created the page, I have always kept a close eye on it. Other editors and admins do the same. We have removed hoaxes before and verify all listings. The disagreement he mentions was a minor one. I had personally verified the death of an editor from Bulgaria and was satisfied that the info was correct. Scott wanted a source for the death notice...well now we have it. Problem solved. As for moving this page to meta, if that is the consensus, fine, but the last time this discussion came up the consensus was to leave it here. Remember, Wikipedia is a community and its the effort of the community which makes this place work. This page is an attempt to assist the community with something that comes to us all: death. --SouthernNights (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * delete as the material is intrinsically not verifiable as a rule per WP:RS. The issue of "who should be listed" (notability within WP) also arises -- should the threshhold be 50,000 edits? 1,000?  And the list fails any sense of "completeness" at all.  The only question ought to be "would this article in mainspace be allowed to stand if it were on any other topic?"   If someone wanted it in their own userspace, maybe. Mainspace? No. Collect (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't in mainspace, it's in project space - it's where meta discussions take place, there's also essays and other items similar to Deceased Wikipedians. This is more of a memorial than an article.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And before someone says it: WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to articlespace. It doesn't prevent us from remembering people who contributed to the project in the project space. - Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:RS is not a good reason to delete the entire list. At least some Wikipedians' deaths can be verified solidly (some even off wiki). Instead of deleting the entire thing, I suggest pruning the page. Notability of Wikipedians also isn't an issue since sporadic contributor's deaths are unlikely to be reported. - Mgm|(talk) 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't a sporadic contributor's death be reported? He might be newsworthy for any other number of reasons. Or, are you suggesting that we only list people where an off-wiki source names them as a wikipedian who has died. I could perhaps go for that, but nearly all the current entries would fail.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think the page acts as a fitting memorial to contributors who have given a lot to the project but are no longer with us. I share the concerns of Scott and MZMcBride however and believe that there should be strong sourcing for any death which appears on the page - some pruning would be a good thing, but I don't believe the page needs to be deleted or moved.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you oppose a move to meta, do you support removing non-en.wp contributors. You say "the project", but which one?--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. This is the English Wikipedia - if people have edited this project then we can remember them here, if they haven't then they can be remembered on their own project.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the page is NOT limited in scope to english wikipedians, so I'm not following you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I said above we should crop those out. If they've made contribs here, then they can stay - if not, they can go.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Pruning might be necessary, but deletion is not. Garion96 (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the BLP is a non-issue, since any defaming info will be deleted outright from this page, per obituary rules acceptable in all civilized world. Hoax probability is low: the very fact of death must be verified from a reliable source to be entered into this page. The rest is unimportant (I will not list the reasons, but if questioned, I may elaborate). Notability is a non-issue: this is not an article space, and any volunteer effort must be appreciated and remembered by wikipedia. - 7-bubёn >t 17:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The BLP issue is not about defaming, but about the potential for hoax. And no, verifiable reliable sources have not been insisted upon. See my diffs above. I reworded the intro to demand verifiable sourcing, but it appears that regulars have not seen that as necessary, and are unlikely to start doing so.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed my removal of an unverified entry has now been twice reverted with no sources supplied, and just now a third time with a discussion on a Bulgarian noticeboard offered as verification.. The potential for hoax or mistake here is great with these shoddy attitudes. Keep votes need to consider that unless they are personally willing to help out, this will not change.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hoaxbait, unless proper verifiability is enforced. Move to meta and insist on proper sourcing, or failing that, just delete it. --John (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but be damn careful about it - and yes, I've been personally involved in verifying this, and participated in rooting out one hoax. DS (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - those that have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia SHOULD be remembered! ArcAngel (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - though it needs to be vetted carefully. I'd not be averse to moving it to Meta, neither, especially as it also contains deceased editors who were more prominent on other wikis - A l is o n  ❤ 21:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability and WP:RS apply to articles, not the Wikipedia namespace (and the same goes for WP:NOTMEMORIAL). I understand the concerns about this page, but as long as it's carefully monitored to prevent hoaxes and the like, I think it is acceptable. Terraxos (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't carefully monitored, and hoaxes have occurred. There is currently poorly referenced entries in it, and attempts to remove them have been reverted. So saying "keep and monitor" is useless, unless people are going to help, and so far no one is removing the stuff that's been replaced. I'm happy to keep this if it will actually be monitored, but it will not.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Remembrance can be achieved by a memorial on the User/User talk page. A special page for some hypothetical elite is, in my opinion, distasteful. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a straightforward speedy. No conceivable use in constructing an encyclopedia. Delete. --TS 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tony, it isn't in the encyclopedia, it's in the Wikipedia namespace.  Grsz 11 Review 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia space is also solely for producing an encyclopedia. If you want to remember somebody, write a blog about them or something. --TS 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's outside the scope of our mission here. It's problematic for a few reasons mentioned above.  So, since it's serving no useful purpose and it's liable to cause problems, the balance swings toward delete.   If this is really important to anyone, host it on your own website. Friday (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  delete or move to meta keep but please consider moving to meta(alison's argument have convinced me, voting delete feels like kicking the gravestones of dead puppies) not going to help us to write an encyclopedia, several problems with maintenance, not many reliable sources, WP:NOTMEMORIAL does apply to all wikipedia pages (otherwise userspace would be full of memorials of people), this sort of self-referential stuff should be moved to meta (specially as it includes editors from other languages like no:Bruker:Tronogrim and not just enwiki editors) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It aids in building community and it has not been a problem. Jonathunder (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did you read the debate? There's been at least one hoax and edit warring to keep unverified stuff in (which indeed remains in).--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the discussions, thank you, and am not pursuaded there are insurmountable problems or that the community would benefit from deletion of this page. Jonathunder (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. But you did say "it has not been a problem" - when the discussion shows it has, so I presumed you had not read the discussion. The "insurmountable problem" is that people don't remove unverified entries, (there is one currently on it now) which leaves us open to hoaxes. There is clearly a benefit in preventing hoaxes - so we either need to delete it, or step up the vigilance on removing unverifiable stuff. Are you willing to help with that? Because if you are not, I'd like to hear how you think the problem can be surmounted? --Scott Mac (Doc) 19:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had the article on my watchlist for some time, actually. I've read your arguments, but I do not see that any of the current entries are problematical. Entries that were questionable were removed. Jonathunder (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Avruch  T 04:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although Wikipedia is not mainly a social site, without social aspects there would be no Wikipedia; throughout WP-space pages, the term "community" is used. This page is part of that.  Individual edit details can be handled as with all such questions, by consensus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete outright, this isn't the place for a memorial. --B (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why does the Signpost print obituaries


 * Keep, most of the reasons to delete appear to be "I am having difficulty dealing with the way this page is being used", which is not a valid reason to delete. The only valid reason to delete which I can see is that the page falls outside the scope of the Wikipedia namespace and project, which I am inclined to overlook given the serious, genuinely community-driven nature of the page. silsor (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - per, and the following. I remember how hurt people were when Jeffpw died; this is a way for people to remember the ones they love on here. The alternative suggested ("host it on your own website") is unreasonable, as (a) many people don't host their own websites, (b) many people who could are HTML-illiterate anyway (that would include me), and (c) why not remember the deceased on a page here, where they contributed so much to? I have no objection to moving it to Meta, as long as this page soft-redirects to it. —  Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to meta - I don't have a problem with the page per se, as long as all the entries are well-sourced, but it does make more sense to have this cross-project page on metawiki.  Richard 0612  20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; the PaxEquilibrium issue of a few years ago still leaves a bad taste. Second choice is transwiki to meta. Sceptre (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to meta because of the scope issue, and leave a soft redirect. And let meta deal with sourcing. (I don't see why the maintaining admins can't be trusted to verify entries. They may decide to believe the Bulgarian Wikipedia or even engage in a little WP:OR to confirm an entry, but that doesn't mean they're going to let driveby vandals or hoaxers take over the page. Actually vandalism on the page seems to be much reduced if not eliminated lately). Wkdewey (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep And don't redirect to meta. First off, this isn't a memorial, this is an attempt to honor the contributions of editors to this project. There are no problems with sourcing--the only debate over this was a minor one about what exactly the standard of sourcing should be. Second, the discussion of whether or not to move to meta came up before and the consensus was to leave it here.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? That almost sounds like you think consensus can't change. I see a growing consensus here for the page to be moved to Meta. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, consensus can change. And if it does, then so be it. But I'm against moving the page.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The community needs to remember those of it who are no longer with us. I am very sorry that anyone should feel the need to delete it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This page exists, somewhat, at Meta already. It's likely way out of date though.  Majorly  talk  01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is one of the problems of putting pages like this on meta. It makes it harder to find and fewer people watch and update the page. Maybe one day meta will be a better place for items like this, but right now it isn't ready.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really hard to find, and if the page didn't exist here, people would update it on Meta. I can update the page in an instant if I wanted to by importing from here.  Majorly  talk  02:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly anyone ever goes to Meta. DuncanHill (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's time to push back against this fundamentalist attitude that only that which is directly applicable to "building an encyclopedia" has value.  Building and maintaining the community of encyclopedists has an adjunct importance towards this end, and maintaining a page on Wikipedians who have died is among the most primal and emotionally powerful aspects of community.  I find the arguments to delete to be weak and ephemeral:  back up and look at the long view.  Some people have devoted large portions of their creative lives to building Wikipedia, and acknowledging that, after they have died, is a big deal indeed.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a project page, not an article. However, I would recommend including on those Wikipedians who made at least 5000 edits and whose deaths can be verified by third-party sources (such as an obituary in the newspaper) and whose true identity and Wikipedia identity are known to be one and the same person. Ryoung 122 02:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. We ought to be able to work out inclusion standards and sourcing issues.  Wikipedia will be around for a long time, and in the long run this is one of those structural elements that serves a purpose.  Durova Charge! 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep And not aimed at anyone--but per having a heart. That will probably be the only time you see me invoke that for a very, very long time. rootology ( C )( T ) 03:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Root. Patrick Devlin was someone I worked with for years on here - same with Jeff. Who didn't know him?! :) Scott was someone I knew personally and none of these are people I want to see fade away and disappear. Not yet, not yet -  A l is o n  ❤ 03:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per root - this just seems utterly insensitive.  Majorly  talk  04:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should actually work on setting a threshold rather than just deleting the page. Tezkag72  私にどなる  私のはかい  05:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not help with the writing of an encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete some of the contents may be decentralized and userfied. Spiesr (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above, as the English Wikipedians subset of the page on Meta. If the decedent had enough edits on all projects or a high enough profile to qualify on Meta, that and having eny edits here should qualify them for the page here.  The "subset" scheme should scale well, as long as we pipe all links for easy transfer.  OTRS should be used for masking sensitive sources.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's fitting and appropriate to remember such people who have contributed to the project. I've read it in the past and didn't have a problem with it.  Ty  01:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Editors matter, and this is part of our editors' culture.  Reorganising the content as per the nomination may be OK, but do not delete the page, keep it as an index to assist with navigation.  Consider also the large number of incoming links, and then consider the number of people who might just remember the name of this page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Antandrus. Raul654 (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We're humans, not emotionless robots. If better patrolling and stricter requirements for inclusion is what it needs then that's what we'll do, here or on Meta. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A recent incident having to do with a purportedly deceased Wikipedian made me feel sick to my stomach. I still don't know what exactly happened and who did what when, and I don't want to know. Get rid of it ASAP please.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, per all the arguments above, especially per Antandrus. Sourcing is an issue, but this discussion doesn't persuade me that it can't be taken care of. It's worth the trouble to remember our deceased community members. Academic Challenger (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see a problem in paying tribute to those who are no longer with us. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (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.