Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Camila Cabello

 __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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Camila Cabello

 * – (View MfD)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Prematurely created wikiproject for singer who has just one successful album. Only two participants, both of whom are not very active. The project page has not been edited since its creation in April last year, which means it is not being put to use either. We don't even have a WikiProject Fifth Harmony, so why does Cabello need one? This is fine as a potential task force on the pop music wikiproject. NØ 12:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep There is no policy based reason for deleting a project due to activity or notability concerns, particularly if the subject of the wikiproject is wikinotable. I recommend just marking the project as inactive and then reaching out to the wikiproject council and let them know that they need to work to establish a policy surrounding the deletion of frivolous projects. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia has no firm rules. For discussions at AFD where is is a huge body of precedent for what is kept and what is deleted, then the argument that the nomination lacks an appeal to policy may be valid, but this is MFD which is the catch-all for any stuff that hasn't got a dedicated deletion/discussion venue.  The nomination makes the argument for deletion within the spirit of no firm rules.  I'll also not you even state "reaching out to the wikiproject council and let them know that they need to work to establish a policy surrounding the deletion of frivolous projects".  Acknowledging this is a frivolous wikiprject, what is a good reason for keeping it beyond rigid adherence to rules?  - Whpq (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and WP:COMMONSENSE. There is insufficient material for there to be a Wikiproject-- Whpq (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will note that when deletion of portals was the main topic here, one editor observed that there were a large number of portals for glamor girls, young attractive female celebrities, mostly singers. Perhaps that can be somewhat generalized to include WikiProjects.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral unless an editor can explain what the harm or risk is of having inactive WikiProjects that are not maintained. WikiProjects are inward-facing, to editors, so that abandoned WikiProjects are nowhere-facing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, mostly it is setting a false precedent, wherein fans of newly debuting artists think they need a WikiProject even though little to no people are interested. Wikiprojects, by their very nature, should be collaborative. Nonetheless, the WikiProject Billie Eilish which was started two days ago is already more updated and has attracted more members than the Cabello project did in a year. Since the creator of the Cabello project, themselves, did not return to the page after creating it, it can easily be seen as an expression of pure fancruft just like the now deleted Cabello portal. Clearly they either don't understand what a wikiproject is for, or just don't intend to use it that way. Then there is the WP:COMMONSENSE argument of her girl group Fifth Harmony being a broader topic than her yet still not having a WikiProject. The problem is not that it is inactive (though that's part of the problem), but the fact that it was never intended to be active. Never proposed at the WP Council either because there is no way it would have made it through.--NØ 09:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also note that you also end up with stuff like WikiProject Camila Cabello cluttering up the talk page, and I imagine any number of automated tasks will fiddle with these things just because the template exists. There is enough talk page clutter without adding DOA wikiprojects to them. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comments by No and Whpq. The two members of this Wikiproject are barely active anyway. What's the point?  Cool Marc  19:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I marked it as inactive. Maybe members of the project (3) revive it. I don't see any reason for deletion. If activity is low over time, they could consider merging to its parent project. --MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a very optimistic take considering two of the "project" "participants" haven’t made any edits at all in the past two months. And if someone does begin using it, that wouldn't be a "revival" since it was never alive in the first place. Activity hasn't just been low, it has been non-existent for a whole year. I’m not seeing a point at all in delaying the merge.NØ 20:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , two months of inactivity does not mean too much, specially in a crisis situation like we are right now. I think it would be better to propose the merge in the project talk page to give participants an extended opportunity to discuss the merge themselves, as well as giving time for discussion of options and implications. I think the MfD would make more sense after an attempt to discuss this with current participants has failed for some time. MarioGom (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Still neutral until either a stronger argument is made for the deletion of stillborn WikiProjects or there is evidence that the project is becoming active. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep; practically harmless. — &thinsp; J 947  [cont] 00:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. A non-existent Wikiproject is a harm; it encourages pointless clutter of talk pages, and if allowed to spring up with even the most obviously inactive and stillborn Wikiprojects kept around, it means that there will eventually be tons of inactive Wikiprojects spamming up talk pages.  This was never useful and never will be, so delete.  (Second choice: Mark historical and remove banner template from all article talk pages.  In the highly unlikely chance of this Wikiproject coming back, the history would be preserved, then.)  SnowFire (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.