Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/South Korea articles by quality

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  delete. MER-C 09:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

South Korea articles by quality

 * *** Note: This page is protected so the MfD tag is on the talk page. ***

Remnants of an aborted WikiProject. No content, no discussion, no significant history. The project banner was redirected, the assessment categories were all empty and unused and have now been deleted, therefore these pages serve no purpose. The third of these merely transcludes another page. Should be a case of uncontroversial housekeeping. PC78 (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep or mark as historical – Is it time to create the Wikipedia version of the Niemöller poem? It's just as I predicted, namely that the small group of editors who succeeded in hijacking the portal namespace would go after WikiProjects next.  I'm not involved with this particular WP.  However, based on other WPs I have been involved with, the pattern is the same: one editor unilaterally declares a WP to be inactive, with no notification, no discussion and no consensus among any of the affected parties.  The software then proceeds to eradicate the assessment work done for that WP and empties out the tracking categories.  This allows an editor to come along to an obscure corner of the encyclopedia such as MFD and use that action as a basis to accomplish complete eradication.  The parties whom Niemöller criticized couldn't have done a better job, I tell you.  Meanwhile, I just went over to WT:KOREA and found active discussion from as recently as two weeks ago, yet no discussion whatsoever about this whole process.  I did look at the WP:MFD page and saw that the deletion discussion on Portal:Korea is still open after almost three months, with some participants getting increasingly agitated that they aren't getting their way.  I recently read a comment at WP:RFA complaining that the whole deletion process has been hijacked.  So, before we start to see more forum-shopping actions like this affecting readers and WPs who haven't been notified, that should be addressed first. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  03:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It might help if you knew what you were talking about before going off on one. These pages refer to WikiProject Korea/South Korea, a short-lived side project that was redirected at MfD in 2010 less than a month after it was created, then re-created in 2015 but tagged as inactive just a few weeks later (and has been ever since). There were never any members, the project banner WikiProject South Korea was redirected in 2016 after discussion at WT:KOREA. I am more than happy to redirect pages or tag them as historical if there is any value in doing so, but what is the value in retaining pages with no content and no meaningful history? Please don't conflate this nomination with the "hijacking of Portal space" (whatever that means), that's got nothing to do with me or this discussion. PC78 (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, maybe I should have just tagged these for speedy deletion per WP:G8 since these three pages are entirely dependant on a template that was redirected three years ago. PC78 (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. All three of these pages are blank, and all of the information is at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Korea-related articles by quality log and Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Korea-related articles by quality statistics. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This is routine housekeeping (WP:G6 applies) of pages dependent of a deleted page (WP:G8 applies).   what on earth woukd be the point of retaining this?
 * And @PC78, yes, it would have been better to just tag these as G6 or G8. Over the years I have speedy-deleted hundreds of similarly abandoned or misconceived pages created by the same bot, with no objections ever. I am sure you acted in good faith, but the these days the pool of active editors is far too small to have it spend time discussing routine cleanup of bot-droppings. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - But when User:BrownHairedGirl refers to bot-droppings, does she mean that a bot dropped them as in failed to clean them up, or that they are the dung left by the bot? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Robert, I intended the latter, but I think that both meanings work equally well.
 * There is some feature of that bot which allows it to be triggered with any old string, which may bear no resemblance to any conceivable WikiProject. So in the last few years I have found literally hundreds of pages made by the bot with titles of the form Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SomeRandomName articles by quality statistics. I think of them as dung, but maybe that's the country girl in me.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Question for : can you point me to some cases where, was you wrote, "one editor unilaterally declares a WP to be inactive, with no notification, no discussion and no consensus among any of the affected parties?" That is obviously problematic, and I would like to assist on mitigating those cases if you can let me know about them. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.