Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Revision

 __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  Deleted per WP:CSD request. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Article Revision


This nomination also includes the following pages related to this page:
 * Template:Article under repair
 * Template:Article lost cause (already deleted by RHaworth under CSD T2)

I really don't think there is a need for this WikiProject, as this duplicates many of the processes we already have on-wiki, such as the Page Curation Wizard and the WP:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron, among others. Gparyani (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - this seems to be a misguided proposal from an inexperienced contributor, who would do well to learn how Wikipedia actually works before creating new Wikiprojects, templates etc. In as much as this project doesn't duplicate existing processes, it contradicts them - in ways that are liable to be highly problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per . I brought this up with on their talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ex_Parte&diff=680631106&oldid=680630097] and other editors have expressed their concern there along with many deletion nominations but the editor seems to have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I hope they will take the time to gain more experience here.  J bh  Talk  23:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Question the underlying issue here is the behavior, not the existence of this one-person "project." Is there a policy or guideline basis for deleting merely because it is a parallel and naive effort? VQuakr (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, it is being proposed for deletion because it isn't in the interests of Wikipedia to have 'projects' which encourage the use of inappropriate templates on articles. If this had been put forward as a proposal, and clearly marked as such, rather than created as a fait accompli by a contributor who seems unwilling to discuss anything, it wouldn't be a problem. Having it in Wikipedia space where people may start to follow its advice is a recipe for trouble. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is hard to disagree. The "lost cause" template pretty obviously could confuse new editors; and the "repair" language is at best redundant with the established effort at WP:CLEANUP. So I guess my !vote is also delete unless the creator can come up with a convincing argument that their project will not cause further disruption (ie, they will start listening voluntarily). VQuakr (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly uncertain how a WikiProject intended to collectively fix incomplete, but useful articles is a “recipe for trouble”, as you put it. I can understand the need to remove the Lost cause template, as that could be considered unnecessary (I didn't take moves to obstruct it's deletion, and fully respect the community's consensus). I can assure you all: the goal of the project is not to cause disruptions. I have not heard specific complaints regarding the project as a whole; although I have received altogether unrelated complaints (i.e. improper patrolling — completely irrelevant to this discussion @). I'm willing to make changes if necessary, but I want this to be known: if I had been contacted regarding issues people had with the project, before it being proposed for deletion, that would've been great. Feel free to respond here, I'd be happy to address any concerns you may have.

Ex Parte talkundefinedcontribs 04:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I direct your attention, again, to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ex_Parte&diff=680631106&oldid=680630097 UT:Ex Parte:Re WikiProject Article Revision] where there is most definitely a 'specific complaint', in fact it is the same specific complaint four other editors have brought up here. That you are not addressing these concerns even now gives me great pause. Please allow me to direct you to a brief essay, Why competence is required to edit Wikipedia, it outlines why those who wish to help and support the project may loose their editing privileges if they are unable to work with the community rather than disrupt it with the best of intentions. You are not at that point yet but you undoubtedly will be if you continue to ignore multiple editors who suggest you get a firm handle on how we already do things rather than trying to implement parallel policies and procedures without community consensus to do so. J bh  Talk  04:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ex Parte, I am clearly going to have to be blunt here since you seem unable to take an obvious hint, and frankly I don't see why we should pussy-foot around this. We already have procedures for 'fixing' articles. And at no point do you appear to have made the slightest effort to ask for anyone else's advice or opinions before creating your own - while clearly lacking the understanding of how the current system works, which would be an obvious prerequisite to improving it. My 'concern' is that you don't know what you are doing, and you seem oblivious of the need to find out. A 'project' that encourages the tagging of articles with vague templates suggesting that there is something-or-other wrong with them, and makes vague promises to fix them - despite having as yet only one participant - is in nobody's interests, and if you cannot see why, I have to suggest that you shouldn't be making such proposals. There is undoubtedly room for improvement in Wikipedia's working methods, and we will always welcome constructive suggestions as to how to do so - but rushing headlong into things before understanding how they work isn't the way to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You know what, close the project. I'm done arguing with you. You refuse to see any person's point of view other than yours. You all make claims that editors should respect everyone's beliefs, and yet you completely disregard that yourself. None of you care for improving the community, you intend on exercising whatever "power" you seem to think you have - you believe you're superior to everyone else. I respect the opinions you all have, and yet you refuse to have a civil discussion. Ex Parte talkundefinedcontribs 05:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow delete, already covered by other projects and guidelines, no need for an inexperienced user's rush job here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per the general belief that the project serves no purpose & mimics already existing WikiProjects. Rather than discuss the issues with the project itself, and work on a comprehensive solution, let's just delete it. #WorkingWithTheCommunity Ex Parte talkundefinedcontribs 05:28, 13 September 2015 (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.