Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 01:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits[edit]

Article is not being updated, and is now very out of date. If it is not updated enough to be accurate, it serves no purpose.

If it does get updated then I am highly likely to change my vote. But it hasn't been so far.

  • Delete (reluctantly) ~~~~ 00:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is a {{historical}} tag for this. Falphin 00:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (ridiculous nom), but it really should be updated. Everyking 00:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the historical tage needs to be placed on it until that happens though.Falphin 00:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Perhaps this nomination will give someone insentive to update. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hopefully it will be updated soon. Thunderbrand 00:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fatal source of editcountitis. Fredrik | talk 00:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. An update would be nice, but lack of same is no excuse for this absurd nomination. Bordering on WP:POINT. Alai 01:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but... Needs an update. ClockworkSoul has been MIA, and apparently the 1.5 upgrade has caused some problems as well. --tomf688(talk) 01:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does anyone know why it isn't updated anymore? Acegikmo1 02:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Still interesting. Of course needs an update, perhaps another technical genius take care of it like User:Angela or User:Kate. Redwolf24 02:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Update or tag as {{historical}}. Angela. 02:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I tagged it as {{historical}}. I also want to keep it too. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs update, but when up-to-date, gives Wikipedians something to strive for, other than the benefit of adding to Wiki. As for fatal edit counts, update bi-monthly or so, as not to put a strain on the servers. <>Who?¿? 03:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - IMO none of the deletion criteria apply, no not a valid candidate for deletion. Guettarda 03:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been temporarily inactive before; I'm sure it'll start being updated again when someone configures the appropriate script. Ambi 03:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise, or someone please create a script to auto-update this, as it definately is important. I hope one day to make the list myself (even though that's a long shot, I'm shooting for it) -mysekurity 04:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, but move to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits as of 2005-04-27. If a new one is put up, I'd love to see lists broken down by number of edits in every namespace. -- BD2412 talk 04:31, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - or move as per BDAmbramson gren 04:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No logical reason whatsoever for the deletion. --Sn0wflake 04:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and update soon (please) -JCarriker 05:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete encourages a bit of snobbery: 6 million edits you only have 2, like saying I have a Porsche, you have a Fiat. Whether I have six or six million I can still drive on the street. What's the point? ColoradoZ 06:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although hopefully this VfD will act as a catalyst for it being updated soon. -R. fiend 07:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep none of the deletion criteria apply. If you want it updated either do it or get someone else to. Updating is better than deleting. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (and possibly update); let's leave the problem of editcountitis to the users themselves and let's not patronize them Adam78 12:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wrong space for it. Also, hierarchies are not useful, because this is not a game. If you need to investigate the activity of a particular person, you can check contribs or use Kate's tools. Other than that, the function of this is to help show who does most. Big deal. (And I'm one with many edits.) Geogre 13:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - it does get updated occasionally, it's fun to have, and there's no actual reason why it should be deleted it, anyway. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been updated before, and surely someone will update it again. It's one of those things that should be a monthly/quarterly update, not a "this is accurate as of 12:42:13.295675434333 and will be updated again at 12:42:13.295675434334." -- Essjay · Talk 14:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Update status has nothing to do with merit for inclusion.
It'sNotTheNumberOfEditsIt'sHowYouUseThem 14:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not encyclopedic" is really not a consideration for an article that is not in the article namespace - instead, the appropriate inquiry is whether it serves any purpose for the community. -- BD2412 talk 18:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • You are of course correct. How about - Damaging to the community as it sponsers Elitism? ILikeToBeCorrectedWhenI'mWrong
  • Keep. David | Talk 14:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Sandpiper 16:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - already several reasons have been presented above.--Bhadani 16:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Yellowmellow45 16:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, and for crying out loud, update it. I'd think I should've cracked that list by now... --Idont Havaname 18:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the deletion criteria even remotely apply. This should never have been listed. If noone wants to update it, it can be redirected somewhere else. Enchanter 18:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and UPDATE! I've been waiting months for an update. TheCoffee 19:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. It just needs to be updated. Why get rid of the entire article? Moncrief 20:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it has the {{historical}} tag... You (Talk) 22:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Update or delete. I see no point in keeping this if it is not going to be updated regularly. JeremyA 23:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Nomination should IMO be declared invalid because it wasn't signed. 23skidoo 02:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Update. Cleduc 05:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Update. I insist! — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 06:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 08:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if not maintained, although if someone will do it, maintaining it seems interesting. It certainly seems unmaintainable in real time, but quarterly or yearly editions could be produced. Bill 08:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So far, editcountitis wasn't fatal Lectonar 12:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and update. An interesting list. Andris 13:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Cburnett 16:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being out of date is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for being updated. Almafeta 20:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jeeze, I'm finally at a point where I might actually get to be on the damn thing, and now we're deleting it? ;-) Someone was making a WP:POINT. func(talk) 05:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but for the love of God please update it. If it goes another month without being updated, then I suggest a VFD. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 11:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - a frivolous nomination. It would be nice to have an update though. Fawcett5 19:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just a publicity ploy to get someone to update the page. Although someone should do so. Sarge Baldy 22:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Someone please develop a program that updates the article automatically. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This is an important article, but it would be nice if it was updated.Karmafist 14:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and update. I should be on the list by now! =P--Kross 15:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with above. Shouldn't be too hard for anyone who's really interested to update it based on the unformatted data. JYolkowski // talk 15:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, delete because it might not be updated? I don't see that logic. Bluemoose 15:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 16:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Update. --Wernher 16:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Update. Please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- for a change, looking at the list is interesting; also it is inspiring, more so, if it is updated. --Bhadani 00:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has the quality of debate on VfD fallen so low that we have this "debate", without anyone actually talking to the people that might be able to get update of the page?! Pcb21| Pete 21:06, 18 July 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits&oldid=1167211289"