Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ceramics

 __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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ceramics


Delete Single-participant WikiProject-that-never-was. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete never started and so bare it is more like a test. Legacypac (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. Seems pointless to keep it idling about. –eggofreason(talk &middot; contribs) 14:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Stillborn. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WikiProject Materials. All the above users, UnitedStatesian, Legacypac, eggofreason, Robert McClenon, I accuse of a lack of care in knee-jerk deletion of things they don't care about, and willfully ignoring a simple reading of deletion policy, WP:ATD.  This is getting out of hand due to the disruption of MfD by the spam nomination of Portals.  There is a completely valid point made at the creation of this WikiProject, that inconsistencies between related articles needs fixing.  The creator made a mistake in creating a narrow focus WikProject, when it is clearly more suited to a Taskforce of an established WikiProject.  The solution is Redirect to WikiProject Materials.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, User:SmokeyJoe, the birth of litters of freaks and monstrosities of genus Portalis does not change the fact that stillborn WikiProjects still need to have a death certificate signed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree, because this WikiProject, unlike any of the Portals, has at its start, an objective of improving an identified problem with content, and it remains a useful resource towards that objective. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Except there is a guideline for these things, at WikiProject Council/Proposals: "If you do not have a group of people, then you do not have a WikiProject, even if you have created a page that is supposedly the place where that group discusses its work." (emphasis in the original). This page fails that standard, which is the only reason I nominated it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Previously, discussions about that have seen people strongly assert that WikiProject Council permission is not *required*. I do not agree with them, and I am much more amenable to deletion (but still preferring redirection in the first instance) if the nominator points out that there was a failure to go through WikiProject Council/Proposals.  I am tempted to go there an re-write it as required.  Last time I looked, not only were most WikiProjects inactive, but the council was inactive.  I think making the new WikiProject proposal mechanism requires is moot, because the whole thing is inactive.
 * I could work with criteria for deleting a WikiProject. However, can you please address criteria for when deletion is required, versus when tagging "Inactive" or "defunct" is not good enough, and also consider redirecting too-small WikiProject to larger ones?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I make no assertion about any permission being required whatsoever. But I do think deletion should be based solely on the number of participants: if there actually was a group to begin with, no problem with tagging as "inactive"/"defunct", and would only nom for deletion if a single editor tried to set one up without any success at generating collaboration.  Re: redirection, I don't think those do any service to those visiting this part of the Project space (and in fact have been abused IMO to make it appear subjects had broad editor interest that did not actually exist); please consider the possibility that a non-existent WikiProject may be MORE encouraging to a future group of editors wanting to establish it than a redirect is. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. A quorum requirement for starting a WikiProject.  That quorum=1 is an attractive idea.  On the talk page, User:Mercurywoodrose voiced strong support.  I’d like to hear his opinion here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 15 April 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.