Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Common Sense

 __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  Keep, will tag with defunct, which is a pre-existing tag similar in concept to the "mothballed" proposal mentioned below. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Common Sense
Dead project, only two members. JJ98 (Talk)  22:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete 2009 project. No discussions. Absolutely no reason to keep this. -- Klein zach  23:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some fine sentiments but it is not a WikiProject. The author may like to convert to an essay.  The nominator really should advise the main author.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's common sense to delete a Wikiproject that never had members or content. But then, you form an infinite loop of sorts, and the whole project goes OH SHI- Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Informed page creator - any admins, please do not delete until the user has had a chance to comment/copy the WikiProject into their name space as an essay. The  Helpful  One  12:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and mark as historical. We might just as well make it official. ;) Hans Adler 14:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  Comment Keep, from originator. Ah, hmmm... this is something that I started as a lark a long time ago, and then forgot about.  It's an interesting idea, and I'd hate to see it deleted outright since I might come back to it at some point.  If I might make a suggestion, why don't we make up a new 'mothballed' template and tag it that way - something like:


 * probably want to make a 'mothballed' category, as well. There's no shortage of space on the servers, and this isn't taking up any bandwidth, so...  would that work for everyone?  If so, I'll whip up the template today.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I should add, userfication is not an option here - if you move this into my userspace I will move it straight back into project space, which is where I think it belongs. Userfication (as a general rule) is stupid.  Either decide to delete it or decide to keep it.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy as an essay, as suggested above, makes the most sense to me; otherwise, deletion seems most consistent with WP convention. 'Mothballing' doesn't seem to be the way such (unused) content is handled, generally. -- Scray (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems clear that userfication is not an option if the user in question remains determined to keep this in article space (even if consensus were to support userfication). Marking historical seems the best second choice.  -- Scray (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy (or mothball) for when come the resurrection. BE——Critical __Talk 20:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy as personal essay. Mathsci (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark historical or mothball per proposal above. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Scray and Mathsci. Given the support above this seems the best option available to us. -- Klein zach  00:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, do not userfy. This is a dormant WikiProject, created in good faith and with more than one member. As anyone who can read the TOC can tell you, it is not an essay, and trying to make it into one would necessitate removing most of the content. No argument has been advanced as to why this is so radically different from every other dormant WikiProject to demand deletion. We do not delete unproblematic projectspace pages which were initiated with the intent of advancing the project. Maintaining historical record however seemingly trivial is an important goal – we cannot tell today what will be useful to the researchers of tomorrow. Storage is cheap, default to keep.  Skomorokh   14:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning the originator's good faith, and I don't think that's the issue. This just looks much more like an essay than a project - essentially all of the content is in the "Goals" section.  There's only one content editor (the originator).  -- Scray (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'd meant to write an essay, I'd have written an essay. I think it's self-evident that that this was not intended to be that.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't commenting on your intention. I was commenting on what I see.  Just my $0.02.  -- Scray (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that. I'm just pointing out that this is obviously intended to be a project, not an essay.  the fact that I stopped working on it in the middle of an explanation doesn't change that.  I'm confused about how and why you would assume this is an essay - it's like you saw a car that was missing two wheels and declared it must be a motorcycle. -- Ludwigs 2  05:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting analogy you provide. One would have to be either blind or stupid to mistake a car for a motorcycle!  The analogy you offer only convinces me that you don't have a better argument than a thinly-veiled insult.  -- Scray (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Scray, do you meant to suggest that I need to make an argument that something labeled as a wikiproject and structured as a wikiproject is not an essay? We all have mistaken opinions - you've had one here; I've had them elsewhere - that's not a problem.  Sticking to our mistakes like glue, however, is a problem.  It's not an essay, clearly, so let it go so that we can all forget about the point and talk about more interesting discussions.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Mark historical or mothball for reasons above  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:57, 20 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.