Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations


 * 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 keep and tag with historical.  jj137  (talk)  21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Association of Member Investigations
Delete defunct wikiproject. No possibily of revival as noone is showing interest in restarting this project.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark as inactive. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark as inactive. Old WikiProjects are almost never deleted; those that are generally show signs of elitism or violation of Wikipedia policy (see Esperanza). -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 09:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tag historical - usually we don't delete inactive projects. Addhoc (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings, but my sense is that these things are usually tagged as historical. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as historical. --Bduke (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, tag historical and close this discussion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, tag historical if there is consensus to do so by those who use the page. I don't think something not being used is a reason to delete it. I disagree that it has no possibility of revival. undefinedUntil  16:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag inactive as per the above. I certainly could see such a group being useful, at least for helping to properly construct requests for mediation, arbitration, user conduct RfCs, and the like. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as violating at least the spirit of Wikipedia. Inappropriate, unnecessary "project" that we don't want anyone restarting.  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as historical. per Exploding Boy. Let me explain, I think if this was deleted, frustrated users might make a similar project. This can be used as an example that such type of Wikiproject is unmaintainable and obsolete.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per John Carter and Lenticel. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it isn't a question of whether the project is likely to be restarted. This project never actually got started in the first place. After a brief flurry of activity setting up the page in March 2005, and a couple of edits in April/May of that year, the project died at birth. As such, it would be incorrect to flag it as a historical process. Mayalld (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2008 (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.