Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional editors who have edited Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional editors who have edited Wikipedia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meta-list that in my opinion does not belong in the article namespace. Taking to AfD for consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 21:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It can be moved to "Wikipedia:Professional editors who have edited Wikipedia", to match "Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles", of whose entries its entries are a subset.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That sounds like a great idea. Definitely would endorse that unless it's against some guideline or policy I'm not familiar with. Cheers. §FreeRangeFrog 21:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I now realize that "Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles" (version of 14:34, 31 October 2012) has this notice: "This listing may contain errors and should NOT be used as a source for any page in Wikipedia or publication outside of Wikipedia without doing some independent checking." (Incidentally, the notice contains a dangling modifier.) Because I am not prepared to do independent checking, and I doubt that other editors are, deletion seems to be appropriate. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my starting the new page.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete the list has quite a arbitrary inclusion criteria. It includes Lambert Meertens who edited the "Revised ALGOL 68 Report" an early spec for computers, but editing the report was just one of the many tasks he performed, really his occupation is its computer scientist. Others on the list are not really editor as their primary profession. I can't see it working either in article space or wikipedia space.--Salix (talk): 21:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – looks like pure original research and synthesis; flaky and non-useful at that, based on the few that I've looked at. Dicklyon (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even think this has a home in project space. As an article in mainspace, there's simply no third-party sources discussing this very narrow intersection of topics, period, and we try to avoid unnecessarily self-referential naval gazing. In project space, I would see several problems here. Clearly, there's no good criteria being applied as to who constitutes a "professional editor", and several of these individuals, while having done some editing work at some point, are not primarily well-known (or even substantively known) in that capacity. Bottom line, this unquestionably doesn't need to be where it is now, and I don't think it's helpful to keep elsewhere, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Smells more like a blacklist than an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I started the page, I did not intend it to be a blacklist. I do not consider professional experience to be denigrating.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, what does the article mean by "professional editors" Does it mean "editors who are professional editors of journals" - although this is not very well clarified on the article itself?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Professional editing in Wikipedia might soon be a good encyclopedic topic at the rate it is being discussed, but not this. As mentioned, it's even problematic in WP space. It would have to be defined as Professional editors who have said they are editing WP articles on behalf of clients, and this would seem a too much like advertising for them. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 7 November 2012 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.