Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wales number

 __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. ✗ plicit  12:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wales number

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

An unused concept which lead one user to create this page and 26 massive subpages (many of them +100K) listing countless editors for, well, no reason at all really. Trying to create their own version of 6 degrees to Kevin Bacon / Erdős number apparently (even with the shortcut WP:ERDOS), but with a completely meaningless metric (having edited the same page as Jimbo Wales, on a site where everyone can edit any page they want with very few exceptions). Not maintained, not useful.

This nom is also for all the subpages, I guess there is little point in tagging them all though? Same sole editor for all of them it seems. Fram (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. We have gone long way from being the Church of Wales, and this particular act of worship is misplaced in time and space. No such user (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Userfy for user:Eumat114. Remove all from projectspace per nom, but I don’t think there is reason to delete from userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, pointless. Graham 87 02:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per NSU, this is just another relic of the weird, moribund celebrity cult around Jimbo. I’d usually say userfy but the creator is retired and hasn’t objected to this deletion so I’m assuming they don’t care anymore. Dronebogus (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, No such user and Dronebogus. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 08:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Possibly funny at the time of creation, but certainly outdated (in all senses) now. Llwyld (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point that the creation edit is extremely recent. It was created between Jimbo’s last 26-27th mainspace edits. He was not been a serious mainspace editor for a very long time. If it were created in 2001-2005, then it would be historical, if outdated.  Being created early 2000 2020, it’s a facepalm. Definitely not funny at the time of creation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean early 2020, right? Because WP didn’t even exist in 2000. Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, thanks. The history shows it was created in Jan 2020. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I assumed it to be one of those early wikipedia 'jokes' that had hung around. Nunny at the time of creation (except possibly to the creator), just bizarre. Llwyld (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete with no objection to somebody restoring it in userspace later if they want to. casualdejekyll  20:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete not helpful. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not the sort of thing that belongs in projectspace. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 05:00, 28 November 2022 (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.