Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians in the news

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians in the news

Wikipedians who wish to label news articles written about them can list those news articles on their userpages. We are now seeing the problems a page like this has become as it is primarily a list of negative appearances of Wikipedians in the news. We should not be maintaining a list including felony convictions and the like for people who are non-notable. Ryan Vesey 18:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

#support. i'm glad to see this up for deletion. this serves as a coatrack for negative coverage, and as a vanity piece for the subjects of positive coverage. 174.141.213.12 (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC) withdrawing !vote. this was apparently decided in a drv from 2006? anyway, withdrawn. 174.141.213.8 (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Circle jerk. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slightly bemused to find a notification on my talk page about this, given that I was talking earlier today to two of the people listed on this page at a Wikimedia UK board meeting. Turns out I actually created the page in 2006, it seems as a result of a deletion discussion about a prominent Wikimedian at the time, hence the notification. However, I don't feel it serves any real purpose. The Land (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a social club -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the social club aspect has to do with it (this is no more "social" than Deceased Wikipedians), but yes, delete. Not useful, particularly as many Wikipedians have been quoted by news sources at various points. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That page should also be deleted. WP:NOTMEMORIAL -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's actually a limited extemption for WP:DECEASED - "While using user space to create a memorial is generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died. At a minimum it is expected that they were regular contributors, and that more than one tenured Wikipedian will have used the deceased user's page (or an appropriate sub-page) to add comments in the event, and after verification, of their death." - hmssolent\Let's convene 00:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not in userspace, it's in project space, it's not on the deceased Wikipedian's subpages, it is just a memorial. At most we would have a Category:Deceased wikipedians, any "memorial" like content would appear on the deceased's userpage. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful and potentially problematic. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've hidden the negative sections [1]. Ryan Vesey 20:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They're back. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have courtesy blanked the entire thing per WP:CBLANK, which states that something can be courtesy blanked "where public view of the discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation". I think the page, as it is written, clearly has the potential to cause harm to some of the people mentioned. Ryan Vesey 19:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTMYSPACE. Additionally, we have the Signpost for anything related to significant activities involving established contributors hmssolent\Let's convene 01:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not useful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Philosopher puts it well. That people will hide negative sections and others will revert them back in, per above, is just the kind of nonsense you'd expect to break out on a nonsensical page like this. Get rid of it. Bishonen | talk 13:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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.