Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Jimbo Wales Unofficial Fan Club

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 officially deleted, not even the creator can resist the deletion calls. Kimchi.sg 07:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Jimbo Wales Unofficial Fan Club

This is categorized as a WikiProject, but it has nothing to do with building a better encyclopedia. Right now, the project simply lists several deity-like descriptions of Jimbo and, although I realize the wikiproject / fan club is in its early stages, it is simply not feasible for it to get far beyond that. It neither attempts to improve a subject within the encyclopedia, like most wikiprojects, nor attempts to establish a sense of community like Esperanza. Instead, it focuses on one person, albeit Jimbo Wales. Interestingly enough, what this does is degrade (is that the right word?) the community as a whole (unintentionally, of course) because it seeks to put one person's contributions at an unnecessarily high level. I'm all for barnstars and complimenting extensively individual users, including Jimbo Wales, on their talk pages, but this goes too far. After all, Jimbo Wales is a Wikipedian too (I think many people forget that sometimes). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. I even signed as a "moral membership" thing :-) — Deckill e r 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and comment) per nom, with a note that, even as it's only tangentially relevant to the deletion discussion (and in any event not the concern on which my support for deletion lies), I agree most strongly with Joturner's note that Jimbo Wales is a Wikipedian whom one shouldn't reflexively deify, not least because excessive stratification is repugnant to the collegial and collaborative atmosphere on the preservation of which the success of the project depends. Joe 04:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nope. Ashibaka tock 04:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Joturner pretty much says it all. BryanG^(talk) 05:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is just not a good idea. --Danaman5 07:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close this MfD now and delete need to create a speedy category especially for this! -
Glen 08:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete, seems like something better suited to Uncyclopedia. --Gunny01 08:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly stupid. I have seen far more useful organisations go down the drain a lot quicker - • The Giant Puffin • 10:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -^
[yell at me] 13:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom, not encyclopedia-related. Sandstein 14:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Had it not been put up on the Community Portal I reckon it would have gone unnoticed and stayed...
lama 16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment except that the creator posted it on Jimbo's talk page :) — Deckill e r 16:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and reasons above. --Wisd e n17 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps well-meant, but no thanks. --Michael Snow 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jimbo's a nice guy, but considering Jimbo's cult of personality is already cast in a negative light by Wikipedia's critics, this is only counterproductive. JDoorj a m Talk 18:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First of all I can't imagine that Jimbo would approve of this page, secondly, I don't think this page's existence would play out well in the media: "Wikipedia Becomes Jimbo Worshipping Cult" Kaldari 18:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Poppypetty 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Obviously. :) I am in fact a great guy and that of course, but, really, please.--67.46.99.186 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst I don't doubt the page was intended in good faith I agree with Kaldari. -- RicDod 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN made my day though. . .--Banana04131 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Randy Johnston 20:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]}

Comment I was serious, but if you don't want it, I support the community. Then again, it was very late at night when I came up with it... Scienceman123 01:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. If someone wants to make a Jimbo Wales Unofficial Fan Club, they can make a web page somewhere else. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, I really had a good laugh over this. -
Mailer Diablo19:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I say delete, makes no sense at all!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.2.67 (talk • contribs)

Delete, because the world would be better without it... Utopianheaven 23:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN material. --Zoz (t) 16:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN nd perhaps allow original editor to move into their user space? EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe transwiki to Uncyclopedia? --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]}

Delete GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:32, 25 July 2006 (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.