Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awareness

 __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  No consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Awareness
Delete. Project started to raise awareness of Wikipedia, active 2006-7. Had 12 members, some discussions but no organization. Project page explained it was "still in planning stages". -- Klein zach  01:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete-- no activity since 2007. -- E♴  (talk)  14:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep We do not delete WikiProjects simply for being inactive. Contains significant talk page discussion. -- Ned Scott 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do too. Delete because it's completely inactive and never really was active. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to WikiProject Wikipedia Outreach. Although it did not actually get started, it was a good idea, and this idea remains current and even  sort-of active.  The history may provide useful historical perspective.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mismatch surely? Awareness was " . . . to spread awareness of Wikipedia and the ability to edit it freely around real-life communities in order to try and attract more contributors from a variety of ages." whereas Outreach "has the goal of encouraging and helping the smaller wikis. . . . ". -- Klein zach  23:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The first quote sounds very much like outreach as I understand the term. The second is about outreach to and for smaller WikiMedia project.  The connection I see is that Wikipedia once had use of outreach, though now no longer, and such sentiments have moved on to less famous fronts of WikiMedia.  I think it should be redirected to the next best thing, that that was what I found.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Counter-intuitive redirecting — in this case from 'outreach' to something more like 'inreach' — would be a disservice to anyone following the link. Delete surely is still the best option in this case. -- Klein zach  00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reasoning with a little fuzzy logic, perhaps, I may concede. But for it to be a reasonable redirect, it only has to be reasonable that someone in future may use it again.  I believe that, very weakly.  But whatever, I strongly disagree with deletion of the talk page, and the project page then needs to be retained as context for the talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2011 (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.