Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long usernames

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 July 12.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 mark as historical --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC) delete.[reply]
Decision overturned. — Aitias // discussion 22:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long usernames[edit]

Really? This is very outdated, and unnecessary. – (iMatthew • talk) at 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless, impossible to manage, outdated, and unnecessary. Aditya ^α _ß 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiki is not for a collection of lists doktorb _words^deeds 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and tag as historical. We don't gain any space in its deletion, if not taking up more, and this could be useful some day when one wishes to look at Wikipedia history. It's not beneficial to the project to have it deleted. ^blurred _peace ☮ 22:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the deny essay. We shouldn't be giving life long pages to trolls. –blurpeace ^(talk) 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have expected that this would spedify the limit of the length of a user name and mention the disadvantages of a long name, but no. Mark this historical, it is an artifact from the earliest times. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless, and yeah, what Aditya said. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that deleting things doesn't save space, correct? This is history, therefore it should be tagged accordingly. ^blurred _peace ☮ 02:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is of no historical significance. Also, look at the kind of usernames in that list. "User:Jizz Drippin' Semen Shooter" for one. Here's another: "User:Jesus is so much cooler than Brahma". You really think this has historical significance? Aditya ^α _ß 15:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the connection to Mike Garcia is a good reason to delete per WP:DENY. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because an employed Wikimedia Foundation developer, administrator, and retired editor were all trolls, thus we shouldn't feed them. WP:DENY does not apply in this situation, and also, Wikipedia is not censored. Just because it lists objectionable usernames, that doesn't mean it's warranted for deletion under vandalism (that you're claiming was from good standing editors). The definition of historical is, "A historical process is one which is no longer in use, or any non-recent log of any process." What, real, position is there against slapping a historical tag on this besides for, "it exists, and it's old, so I want it deleted?" --Blurpeace (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't like to use this term on-wiki, I've just had an 'epic fail' moment. Remind me not to edit while tired. :) --Blurpeace (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An epic fail moment? How so? Aditya ^α _ß 08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I saw his point after misreading the information. He wasn't claiming that the trolls were the editors who created the page, rather, this does apply to WP:DENY as the editors who were reported to this page have a standing place here. I can no longer consider this to be a significant part of Wikipedia history. –blurpeace ^(talk) 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag as historical. Judging by Tim Starling's contributions at the time he made the list, it was inspired by this discussion at the village pump, but for whatever reason it was never linked from that discussion. These days, a query like this would be in a subpage of Wikipedia:Database reports. Graham87 02:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The village pump discussion seems to have been inspired by Mike Garcia, who created inappropriate usernames disparaging Hephaestos, among other things. I can certainly understand the reasoning for deleting or at least blanking this page to deny recognition, and in case of spambots. Therefore this is my weakest "tag as historical" vote so far. Graham87 03:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and tag historical. Is our history, but haas no continuing purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DENY and lack of any benefit to keeping it. It was pointless (though marginally interesting) back in the day it was run, but it's now just an out of date list with a bunch of redlinks. Matt Deres (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:DENY. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no use past troll enabling. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and tag Count me in as someone who doesn't believe WP:DENY applies here. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:DENY has nothing to do with this, but it's hardly anything important, merely a collection of long usernames at the time. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and tag historical. WP:DENY is irrelevant to this. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:DENY says this can be deleted. Thebookofaustin3:16 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (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.