Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (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 non-admin closure as Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, no citation of policy from nominator, and unanimous keep consensus. Yuser31415 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by number of edits
Encourages Editcountitis and the idea that more edits are better. If not, then it serves no purpose. -- Chris is  me 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. For better or for worse, edit counts are referenced all the time (AfDs, RfAs, requests for access to Wikipedia tools), and the page makes no claim that more edits are better. That idea must be coming from somewhere else. If you want to discourage editcountitis, try deleting WP:Editcountitis. Dekimasu 16:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note that this was nominated previously (quite a while ago) and was kept (voting was 51-7 to keep). Dekimasu 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, closed on 17 July 2005 --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Keep, harmless statistics. If editcounting encourages people to edit (even if they only correct typos), it has already served a purpose for the encyclopedia. Kusma (討論) 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's vaguely interesting, and I'd want to see some non-trivial evidence that the page encourages unnecessary edits. Chris, if you don't like the page, you don't need to visit it. But you're going to have to do a whole lot better to convince us to delete it. Meanwhile can we invoke WP:SNOW on this? --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Keep. The page doesn't say or imply "more edits are better". In fact, warnings to avoid that conclusion are plastered all over it. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Serves a useful purpose, and the infrequency of its updates helps to allay fears of Editcountitis. Though, perhaps this could be replaced by a corresponding list in ascending order of edits, so that those with the fewest edits would be listed first, so that those who need to feel a dose of prestige from appearing at the top of the list will be encouraged to do absolutely nothing to help ensure that they maintain their position up front. Alansohn 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Gives me a good idea of who has big edit counts before i run some lengthy edit counter. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Claiming that counting edits is inherently bad is inherently ludicrous. Rfrisbietalk 18:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I understand the concerns, I think they are addressed by the fact that the page is never absolutely up-to-date, therefore you can't make a serious attempt to measure your ongoing activity accurately against other people. It's just an indication. Deb 18:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lugnuts 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pileon Keep. Weak nom. --Gwern (contribs) 18:52 3 January 2007 (GMT)
 * Keep, updating infrequency disbands fears of editcountitis. Nominator should have mentioned previous nom. feydey 19:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was nominated before and survived, because it is of interest to many people.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page is of interest to many contributors.  Why should prolific contributors not be recognized?  --Nelson Ricardo 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (edit conflict), useful page. It does not promote editcountitis (rather, warnings about it), and a rather weak nom. –Llama mansign here 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not convinced Editcountitis is really all that bad; as Kusma says, "If editcounting encourages people to edit (even if they only correct typos), it has already served a purpose for the encyclopedia." I'll note this list appeared in the press a few months ago when SimonP was at the top. The publicity for Wikipedia was overall beneficial. No need to delete an article which garners Wikipedia positive publicity when there are several articles which have done the opposite. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:09, 3 January 2007 (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.