Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiProject Rankings

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings

This proposal is hopelessly against the spirit of a wiki.

• VfD should not be the place to discuss WikiProjects. Instead, if you think we should (or should not) have a policy on inappropriate projects, please join the general discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects.

additionally, there's an Informal vote here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rankings

Because of objections to the use of VfD on this thing, I invite anyone to vote 'object' or 'keep' here and also vote and comment on the project's talk page — Davenbelle 16:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. unwiki. — Davenbelle 01:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Before I vote, I wish to mention that I support this project. Now the disclaimer is done, I wish to point out that I think this VfD may not be needed. We are trying to have a debate on a possible policy, and it does not help things that this page is on VfD. I know there is setiment that this project goes against the idea of Wikipedians being equal. I have to hand that to you, but I still wish to vote keep for this article so the debate/discussion can continue on this delecate subject. Zscout370 01:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  thing's talk page already has an informal vote going against it; this formalizes it. — Davenbelle 01:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but not Support I'm not sure that VfD is the proper way to go about getting rid of a proposal, if indeed proposals should be gotten rid of at all. I do not support this proposal, but feel it should remain where it is and be given the chance to succeed or fail on its own, there's already a vote on the Talk page (it's not doing well either). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  Then once the vote is done, and if CoolCat (who has been blocked for the 3RR) still wants to do this, then just userify this. I am pretty much ready to give up on this and move on, my stress and Wikistress is building up very quickly. Zscout370 01:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  fyi, this originated on User:Coolcat's user page. — Davenbelle 16:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I wrote something, but apparently did not submit it. This place is not a Tetris Tournament. It is childish at best. Fadix 01:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleting a proposals page is not a good way to stop a proposal. Vote against it, don't delete it. The fact that I'm for the proposal has nothing to do with this by the way. Howabout1 01:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I know the vote for the idea has nothing to do with this VfD, I still wanted to put that disclaimer there so people will know how I feel about this page (since I have seen others put in small print that they either created or did x edits to the page up for VfD). Zscout370 01:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal strongly. That said, the way to get rid of it is to express why it's so distasteful on the talk page; there's even a nice section explicitly for voting and commenting. Vote against it and argue on the talk page, but don't use vfd as a battlefield for policy--it's not fair and it's outside the usual process. Meelar (talk) 01:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  So, Meelar, you wish to keep this page, but not support the project as per Starblind? Zscout370 01:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Correct. Sorry, should have clarified. And I'd like to reemphasize that vfd should in most cases be for articles. Meelar (talk) 02:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  Its alright, thank for stopping by. The parting gifts can be found to the left :). Zscout370 02:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. VfD should only be used for non-articles in rare cases; since this proposal seems to be destined to die on its own, this is not one of those cases. android↔talk 02:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm having fun with it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  good point! ;-) — Davenbelle 04:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Question: "unwiki" and similar sentiments are not listed as one of the problems that may require deletion. Do we even have (for lack of a better word) jurisdiction here, as none of the listed policies are for WikiProjects? --Dmcdevit 04:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete talk that you don't like. Just let it die. silsor 06:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  Most of the talk has been against this for awhile. How else do such things die? — Davenbelle 06:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  Alone. In the rain. If popular opinion is strongly against it, it won't be used. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Like Roy Batty? — Davenbelle 16:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, VFD is not the way to get rid of such a proposal. Agree with Mirv's sentiment above. Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Especially since there's a vote on the topic's talk page. Vote there. Mgm|^(talk) 08:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• This feels like an obvious personal attack magnet, so I'm really not in favor of it. So I'd vote delete. However, people correctly state that VfD wouldn't really work in getting rid of this. Maybe we need a policy regarding inappropriate WikiProjects, or something like that. Radiant_* 10:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow it to die a natural death. VfD doesn't need to be a House Committee on Un-Wikipedian Activities; well-intentioned but misguided policy proposals are already handled through Village Pump discussion and other avenues. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I'll be voting against this proposal right after I sign this, I think the higher-ups might want to consider a policy discouraging listing policies under debate for deletion. --InShaneee 19:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons articulated by TenOfAllTrades | Talk . Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. VFD is not the way to get rid of such a proposal as MGM suggested, Its under developement, almost no improvement has been done, its been "developed". Voting is premature currently as there is no finished product. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not a proposal I support (I requested that I be removed from an earlier version of the ranking list) but non-support of a proposal is not a valid reason to delete it. Please keep it, even if it fails to gain sufficient support to become widely used, as a historical record of an interesting idea. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though I personally oppose the project. If the project becomes defunct, a Userfy might be in order, but VfD is not the place to discuss WikiProjects.--Deathphoenix 13:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This isn't the correct procedure for getting rid of WikiProjects. --Carnildo 01:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep – If you dislike the proposal, feel free to vote against it. VfD is not the proper route to take. – ClockworkSoul 03:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only because this shouldn't go through VfD - at least not before the issue is discussed on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects. No support for the project by me. VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. very useful. --DuKot 01:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Just a (very sketchy and possibly misguided) policy proposal, no abuse of process, policy or wikiquette going on here. Alai 23:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unwiki. While I appreciate other user's concerns that a VfD isn't typical procedure, I would also point out that there is no procedure for handling inappropriate WikiProjects. I have read the discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects, and I would argue that this project comes under the category 'cow pies' or 'rhubarb pies' (to which the appropriate response is a VfD), since in my opinion it contravenes a number of policies. Particularly: Wikipedia:No personal attacks, in that it encourages prejudice against users, and "suggest[s] a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is", and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, in that it encourages the assumption that certain users will act in bad faith. It also precludes the idea that Wikipedians can learn from the past and improve their wikibilities. In the words of Jimbo, "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites." Finally, I apologise for such a long vote! --bainer 07:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.