Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Challenges

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 keep. (Radiant) 13:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Challenges

Content forking. We already have the Wikipedia backlogs, and listing only certain articles from them as "challenges" seems ridiculous to me. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You could have asked Danny for his rationale for starting this page first. He's not one to fork things frivolously. Kimchi.sg 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Danny was notified, see here. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - By saying "You could have asked... first", I implied asking him before nominating it for MfD, not asking him after the fact. Sorry if that was not clear. Kimchi.sg 16:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems possibly useful (although making it less of a one-person project would be nice) --Improv 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Challenge" might be a valid term for some of these. For example, a media reference to 4chan, regardless of its incredible internet popularity, would probably be very hard to find, as the mainstream media generally tries to avoid covering websites that contain offensive content, especially what you often find in 4chan's /b/. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 19:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but I believe over a half of the articles listed at the backlogs might also be labeled as as "challenges" under such criteria, especially for articles lacking sources. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. This looks like one user's attempt to circumvent the slow and overloaded category method by creating his own method just for his own articles. The obvious result would be that other people would flood the "Challenges" page until it was just another "Articles Lacking Sources" category. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Great to see something like this on the recent changes page, but why not guide users to the existing backlogs? Also, if I remember correctly, some content here is chosen based on alphabet order ("4chan"), leading to arbitrary and unimportant challenges ("4chan"). –Outriggr § 10:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I generally see nothing wrong with it...It would be nice if it was larger and less of a one user thing. But seems helpfull.__Seadog ^♪ 02:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or change the purpose. Created such a page in order to help the clearing of the backlog but the way the page was intended to be used was to do exactly that. In a future, that may be distant, such a page will be used by some editors and will have its use. Lincher 05:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the success of Danny's challenge and that Danny did it, I'm sure there is nothing negative coming out of this page. Yanksox 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With all the respect to Danny and his challenges, I don't like the way this one works. Per Dark Shikari, this one will either be widely ignored, or get a flood of articles from the backlogs. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be perfectly honest, this isn't going to effect anyone negatively and it won't mess with the goal of creating an encyclopedia. Danny's Challenge created something quite amazing, and this is helping in keep up the quality of the encyclopedia. If you have an issue with that, I have serious concerns. Yanksox 16:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'm not questioning the good motives behind creating this, I think it is both neglected and a duplication of other non-neglected pages that serve the same purpose. It adds essentially no useful discussion, limiting itself to one- and two-word comments on what to do for each of the 6 listed pages. (If it wasn't neglected, I can't imagine that there should only be 6 items on the page.) —Doug Bell ^talk 22:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful and encourages work on articles. 1ne 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ter e nc e Ong 11:38, 29 November 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.