Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting


 * 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 Keep, no reason for nomination given, strong consensus to keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Closing instructions

WP:WikiProject Citizendium Porting

 * Note, I'll close this MfD in a few hours if the nominator does not provide a rationale. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - No reason given for nomination. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to "keep" or "delete" the project? Please "vote" accordingly. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So clarified. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. No rationale given for deletion. In any case, this is very new - we've only had the legal capacity to do this for a few weeks, and that's not enough time to judge results. Having said that, this seems like a terribly bad implementation of what looks like a good idea on the surface - "improve Wikipedia articles by keeping them synchronized with their Citizendium counterparts" is a serious violation of "anyone can edit" and WP:OWN, it would unnecessarily prevent GFDL licensing of the affected articles, plus it would seem be pushing people towards participation in Citizendium in order for their edits to be retained. I urge the project to resolve these issues so they can continue with their goal of improving Wikipedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the synchronization is one-way (i.e. import content from CZ into WP). Deletion of WP content is not part of the project (except for duplicated info insofar as that's inherent to the merging process). --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. The project page (which is in an early state, of course) makes it sound like you would simply be periodically overwriting Wikipedia's articles with the equivalent Citizendium content. If the idea is simply to merge missing content that is available on Citizendium, then most of my objections go away. If that's true, I'd suggest making it plain on the WikiProject page so everyone understands that up front. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose I suppose someone just doesn't like Citizendium? That doesn't mean we shouldn't look to see if they have useful content we can use. Further, MFD is hardly the place to deal with projects you don't like, better to discuss them than simply try to remove them. --Falcorian (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to "keep" or "delete" the project? Please "vote" accordingly. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote, and I think my statement makes it perfectly clear. --Falcorian (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I oppose such a deletion attempt and believe we should keep the project. No rationale for deletion has been given. I hope it's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because a wikiproject is created by the consensus of those who APPROVE of the project. It's all about a meeting of the minds for a common goal. Those who don't like it can start their own project with different goals. The creation of projects is not governed by the same rules used for the creation of articles, lists, etc., where MfD and AfD apply. Only if the project actually violates our policies should it be put up for MfD, and then only AFTER attempts to correct its faults have been made on the project's talk page. AGF and give this a chance. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's too obvious. I'm not gonna elaborate. Taku (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep... but hold your horses! Projects should not be rushed into - agree aims, wording and processes before starting editing efforts. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. No rationale was given for the nomination but it likely is related to this current thread on the Citizendium forums, which expresses concern about this project appropriating Citizendium content. It's unfortunate that there's so often an adversarial view between the Citizendium and Wikipedia communities. Citizendium desperately needs content -- almost three years after launch, it still lacks articles on obscure and esoteric subjects as "chocolate" and  "weather" and "Tibet". In turn, Wikipedia would benefit from borrowing some of Citizendium's better content. And if Citizendium is properly credited then it could even drive traffic to CZ ("hey, this nice article came from there, let's check it out"). There's room for more than one encyclopedia project. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, when we link a CZ article from Wikipedia in the form of attribution, it doesn't have "nofollow", meaning that it helps CZ in terms of Google ranking. This project therefore could have a potential to create a catalysts for the CZ project to really take off. -- Taku (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Possible COI on the part of the nominator: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Drew_R._Smith --Cybercobra (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a COI in any meaningful sense, any more than an American has a COI when editing History of the United States. Just an unfortunate view of the relationship between the projects. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2009 (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.