Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Featured users

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 Delete. Xoloz 15:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, and all to do with edicountitis, ego-stroking and factionalism. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: if this page is deleted, Template:Uotd and Template:FUC should also be deleted. --cesarb 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Not even close to a viable concept, and will degenerate into bickering and popularity contests faster than votes for adminship.—Perceval
• Delete per nom. This is cliquist. People should contribute as a public service without expecting recognition, as all forms of public recognition warp people's priorities. Calsicol 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Big nasty popularity contest that apparently would happen daily. Kevin_b_er 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Potentially very divisive. --cesarb 03:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Irrelevant-- see the terms below [Save page]. --Ancheta Wis 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (e) All of the above. -R. S. Shaw 07:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per above. This would lead only to hurt feelings and unnecessary drama. — TKD::Talk 08:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Twittenham 08:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am hardly one of those who advocate proper users recognition and such, but this is rather too much. I would not mind userfying this as a kind of WP:PUA, but please keep this out of main space.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  15:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does nothing to help individuals or the community help build an encyclopedia. Barno 16:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is absolutely no valid reason to create classes of users. Many people already feel that admins have become an aristocracy. We are trying to combat that as admins have more tools but are still just users like everyone else. If we have featured users running around it essentially denegrates everyone else to second class status. This is unacceptable. If someone wants to make a popularity contest to acknowledge well-liked contributors in their user space they are free to do so, but this should not be anywhere outside of the user namespace. I don't like the idea of simply userfying it either as it currently looks sem-official and it decidedly isn't. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, should not have been promoted to Wikipedia space. --Cyde↔Weys 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as this seemed to come about without any process or consensus. However, I do believe it would be useful for Wikipedia to have a process for recognizing its best contributors. I don't think a "featured user" would necessarily be "above" anyone else--it's just a recognition, pure and simple. Getting patted on the shoulder for your good work is a good thing. Don't overanalyze that. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is a community of volunteers. Volunteers, by definition, do not work to be recognized or honored. Working with a goal of recognition has a very large potential to adversely affect the content of the encyclopedia (for example, cases of editcountitis). Wikipedia is above a primitive caste system. Additionally, I can see this turning into junior high class elections - an extremely dramatic popularity contest. Users who think they should be featured and are not may be likely to leave, and we need all the contributors we can get. In response to Stevietheman: Barnstars are a pat on the back without the extra drama. Srose (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• d GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, don't see a need for such a page, classes of users does not benefit the community in anyway. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 10:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per your pick of the above, just a silly idea. Sandstein 18:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not... for stroking your own ego CharonX/talk 12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and mark rejected, as a rather bad policy proposal. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2006 (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.