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 debate was speedy delete. It's obvious this was authored out of good intention, but effort is problematic nonetheless. El_C 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any system which implies an inherent superiority of one class of editors over another should be looked at with askance; especially one that is sitting in the wikipedia namespace, as this implies tacit acceptance by Wikipedia itself -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As nominator. -- Avi (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no reason for this. People who add themselves to this category would be saying that they are better than everyone else, which is simply unacceptable. --Michael Greiner 16:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We already have barnstars as awards for those who make significant contributions to wikipedia, so this is unneeded. Also unlike barnstars which are a one time "event" that recognize editors for a specific contribution, these do not cite any specific event, and in effect create a "upper-class" of wikipedians which would create unneeded tension in the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - OTT in my opinion. Deb (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do No Delete What you are saying is all wrong. Wiki Doctorates is a namespace to recognise the people who do "all the work" on Wikipedia and keep it running. It is there to thank administrators and in now way is it intended to make an "upper class" which I is not creating. This was set up in co-operation with an administrator (who will remain anon. for the time bieng) and was moved to namespace by this administrator to avoid deletion.If you have and problems with this site feel free to contact me and I would like to know why the comments above are thought.Yours SincerelyDr.J.Wright MD (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoa. I wouldn't say the page was "set up in cooperation with an administrator". I moved it out of article space to Wikipedia: space, because that was an obvious move. That didn't mean I thought the page was a good idea; I just thought it would be heavy-handed to speedily delete it. Now that it's up for MfD, I think you can see where the consensus is leaning. I'm sorry I didn't warn you that the page would likely be deleted. It was late last night. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ALL USERS ARE CREATED EQUAL. WP does not, and shall never, have a ranking system for editors. There have been other attempts to rank editors within some military WikiProjects, and those attempts were shot down. Even the "admin" title is not a rank; it is a title of responsibility. The creator of this page has been around for 2.5 days [1] - he is now on equal footing with me. Had this page been around previously, he would be a pipsqueak to me. Oh, and IPs would be shunned. Therefore: this page is one giant BITE for WP-kind.--12 Noon ^2¢ 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDO Not Delete This page should not be deleted and how can you say that adminship is not a rank because it is and anything that is "abnormal" in a good way is a rank. A rank is where you have control over things that "normal" people do not therefore an Admin is a rank! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wright93 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC) I've stricken your vote as you accidentally voted twice. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ask any admin - it is a mop and broom and most definitely not a rank - read WP:ADMIN. Also, I think whoever this admin is that helped create this page should go through a little RfC to make sure s/he fully understands the mission of WP. BTW, just a friendly head's up, I had to remove you as a Wiki Doctorate because you do not appear to meet any of the minimum requirements yet.--12 Noon ^2¢ 17:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not help create this page; Wright93 is misrepresenting. I moved the page from article namespace to Wikipedia: namespace, deleted the resulting redirect, and explained to the user about namespaces. That was in no way an endorsement of the project. If you wish it open an RFC on me for that, I will cheerfully submit to it. If I made any mistake, it was a failure to set up this MfD myself; but I don't mind erring on the side of WP:NOBITE. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the truth comes out.--12 Noon ^2¢ 04:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pointless idea, bound to lead to trouble. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. I tagged this for CSD when it was in mainspace, and I still stand by that argument., This idea, although well-meaning, is likely to lead to madness and 'I'm better than you' mentailities. ><RichardΩ612 19:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is very likely to be much more trouble than it's worth. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not hurting anything. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It may not be hurting anything now, but it certainly will do! Imagine if you were editing an article, adding factual, properly sourced info only to have it removed by someone who said 'Only people with a Wiki Doctorate can edit here.' Then it would be doing harm, creating an 'elite' who could use the title to sway opinions and control 'lesser' Wikipedians. ><RichardΩ612 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Well that is totally wrong as anyone could do that but with administrators or recent changes patroller etc. --J.Wright (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Per nom, no one editor is a higher class than the other. Tiptoety ^talk 22:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 10 users saying delete in the opening four hours? May be SNOWable now. Just use barnstars. violet/riga (t) 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am all for building a sense of community and praising people's efforts, but this is a really terrible idea as others above have said. --Bduke (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• inacting WP:SNOW. Time for this to be closed as delete and turned into a red link.

• Piling on before SNOWsure This is a bad, bad, bad idea. And a wholly unnecessary one at that. -- Mike (Kicking222) 01:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - also, Wright93, please don't claim that I helped you set up this page - I just moved it from the very inappropriate place where you created it, and then explained what I had done. That's hardly helping you set it up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete divisive. –Pomte 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SNOW closer requested. Tiptoety ^talk 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As nom, I think it is more appropriate that someone other than myself closes this. -- Avi (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Prob a good idea, i could ask someone on ANI? Tiptoety ^talk 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. -- Avi (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• [2] Should not be long now, red link here we come. Tiptoety ^talk 06:02, 2 January 2008 (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.