Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion

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: keep. I don't think we have consensus/a policy that justifies deletion of WikiProjects out of inactivity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion[edit]

As a deletionist, it is with regret that I nominate WikiProject Deletion for deletion at MfD, but it is a long defunct project whose only listed member in the Participants section is a currently blocked user. The project contains only a single page stating its purpose, its goals, and what it is and is not. It provides some helpful deletion-related links, but nothing that isn't found elsewhere. There are few subpages, and I think the best thing is, well, deletion, without prejudice to another group of editors recreating the project and even requesting undeletion via WP:REFUND if they want to restart the project. So, call this a soft delete (WP:REFUND applies) of WikiProject Deletion. Similarly, if someone wants to request userification of this page for historical purposes, that is fine, but I see no reason for keeping as it just means needless irregular maintenance through AWB and via bot accounts. Additionally, by deleting, we could, potentially, reallocate and retarget WP:SCISSORS elsewhere. Doug Mehus T·C 01:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is defunct and marked as such. There is no good reason to be going round erasing Wikipedia history. -- Whpq (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being defunct is not itself a reason to delete a WikiProject. This has historical value, and maintaining it is not as much of a burden as the nominator implies (I don't see any recent examples of it besides reverting vandalism). I also oppose userfication because there is no obvious userspace for that, and doing so could give the impression that this was one of those projects that never got more than one or two members. Glades12 (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glades12 and Whpq:, my understanding is the policy says that WikiProjects marked as inactive (or believed to be inactive) are not typically deleted. This is not that; it's flat out labelled as defunct. Moreover, there is little meaningful talk page discussions or anything else worth keeping. Moreover, if vandalism is occurring in an un- or under-monitored area, that very much is a reason for deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 16:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the linko o the policy that states defunct Wikiprojects must be deleted. There isn't one. As for this being an unmonitored area that is subject to vandalism, the page history shows that vandalism is not prevalent nor is it unmonitored with 60 page watchers. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The nominator hasn't made either a policy-based case or a common-sense-based case for deletion solely because the project is defunct. Does the nominator propose to delete all defunct WikiProjects, rather than retain them as historical information? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete, historical reasons to keep. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have marked the page as historical with a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy based reasons to delete, but historical reasons to keep. Lightburst (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per others. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all defunct/inactive WikiProjects should be nominated for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy reason provided to justify deletion and it retains a historical record for future editors. It also serves as a reminder of what didn't work last time, so discourages new users from repeating past mistakes. Also, defunct or inactive WikiProjects can be reactivated as soon as a new user takes interest in the subject. As a side note, the opening comment about participant numbers is misleading. The project's participant category shows 17 pages, mostly belonging to inactive users but I counted 4 users still active on Wikipedia within the last 9 months. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's better to retain the pages from inactive projects for historical information. Lepricavark (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Bad-faith nomination. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 18:09, 11 February 2020 (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.