Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Cyberlaw 2009 Berkeley

 __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  the argument "nobody's going to use this" must carry little weight against the argument "Hey, this is useful to me." Wily D 06:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Cyberlaw 2009 Berkeley


As far as I can tell this is not simply a dormant but is a defunct Wikiproject. No articles (or article talk pages) link to it. The phrasing appears to be that of an ended school or college project Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I created this page (and one each year just like it) as students in my courses worked on improving Wikipedia articles related to Cyberlaw, the subject of my class. This was before there was an official Education Program within Wikipedia. The original WikiProject Cyberlaw is essentially inactive, and so my students and I are now Wikiproject Cyberlaw and each Spring since 2009 have created a new page like this, with "WikiProject Cyberlaw" redirecting to whatever the current year is. The prior year pages are a useful archive that I'd like us to keep. This was the plan all along, which is why they are dated by year. People are very interested in understanding whether/to what extent organized student contributions to Wikipedia through class assignments are beneficial to Wikipedia and/or the students and so this page is a useful record of early efforts at that which can be studied in an effort to address these sorts of questions. Brianwc (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my answer to SGcM below. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, and tag as historical. Defunct projects are usually tagged, if useful as a historical reference, instead of deleted.--SGCM (talk)  19:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can show that it has historical value, and document it as such, then I have no objection to tagging it as such and it's remaining here. Otherwise I feel deletion is valid for it. UNless I am mistaken I cannot see what it achieved, hence my nomination. I am happy to be shown to be mistaken. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The project was a predecessor of United States Education Program/Courses/Cyberlaw (Brian Carver), which is still ongoing.--SGCM (talk)  23:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a neat and tidy soul. Such projects should, surely, become subpages of the current project if they are predecessors and have some value to that project. There is an argument for moving them and their associated paraphernalia to subpages in this manner. I tripped over this one by accident and was perplexed that it was dead and abandoned and so nominated it for deletion. Making it a subpage (and making those like it subpages) of the current project and having it act as an umbrella for them all allows those who view this history of this area as interesting to have the scope they need and in a better organised manner surely? I would view such a grouping favourably and consider it a valid ourcome of this discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're a neat and tidy soul, but Wikipedia isn't. The page isn't orphaned, nor a dead end. It isn't causing any problems where it is, and if someone has questions about this history of this course/project it exists in a logical place (seeing as they are all done by date).
 * Additionally, keeping it on the "top level" subpage, explains its independence from the education program that did not exist at that time. Legoktm (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not intended to be self referencing or self reverencing. That it is not neat and tidy is a great reason to make it so. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * True, however the project namespace is supposed to be self referencing. (What other use for it is there otherwise?) Besides, you can make it "neat and tidy" by organizing the content rather than removing it. Legoktm (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the outcome of this discussion is that it be moved, then that suits our community purpose just fine. By implication there is then consensus to move the other items beneath the umbrella, too. To answer your question below about why it came to MfD, it came because that appeared the most appropriate route to reach a simple consensus on doing something, or doing nothing. Simply chucking a 'defunct' tag at the top is a band aid. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Mark historical and keep since the organizer of this is still around and has a system and rationale for doing it this way, I think we can give him that option. If you can convince Brianwc that it's more useful and less messy to keep them as subpages (a position I agree with), then you can just move it there and nominate the redirect for uncontroversial speedy deletion.  But don't do that without the organizer's consent.  Gigs (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Delete. This was never a WikiProject. It never had any members or any discussions, only a list of articles. I was going to suggest that it should become a subpage of Wikiproject Cyberlaw, but that is not viable either. In fact the other page is even less substantial than this one . . . . Perhaps Brianwc should list his project with School and university projects? There may be other options, but at any rate this page shouldn't remain as a WikiProject. -- Klein  zach  13:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't find Brianwc's argument that the apparent failure of these Wikiprojects is, in itself, of historical interest? That seems fairly compelling to me. Gigs (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's little evidence that this WikiProject ever got started, so I don't think it can be regarded as a failure. IMO either the content is useless, in which case it can be deleted, or it's useful, in which case it should be redirected. -- Klein zach  14:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mark historical and keep - It has a valuable history. If you're upset over the name of it, move it. That being said, most school projects before the education program was formalized were called WikiProjects. Legoktm (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Things are not valuable because an editor says so. They are valuable if they have a demonstrable value. Your statement that it has value has not demonstrated that value to the community. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Point taken. Here's why it has value to me (and by extension the community):
 * This is the first CyberLaw project at UC Berkeley, and is useful in showing a comparison from where the project originally started from and where it is today.
 * Has a list of users who were participants in the project, as far as I can see, this list is not replicated anywhere else.
 * Contains redlinks to articles which are supposedly notable, just haven't been written yet (probably could be added to WP:RA at some point)
 * Shows a relative importance of articles at that time. For example, if you look at the 2009 list, there is a category for Spam. Yet in the 2011 list, that category doesn't exist anymore.
 * Finally, I am a bit confused as to why there is even a reason to delete it. We typically don't delete defunct WikiProjects, they just get tagged with (or something). I don't understand why this didn't happen, and it came to MfD.
 * One thing I did notice, is that the page has very few incoming links, so it would not be a major problem if the page was moved. However, in an effort to maintain consistency with other years, it should be kept where it is right now. Legoktm (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The argument by Legoktm (above) regarding redlinks (no. 3) is reasonable IMO, and would justify a move to somewhere where it could be put to use, for example as a subpage of an active project. Regarding the deletion of defunct WikiProjects, we do delete them if they were stillborn, never got started, had no discussions, produced no work etc. We only mark defunct WikiProjects as 'historical' if they existed, as least for a while, as productive (bonafide WikiProject) entities. -- Klein zach  14:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As nominator I would support the outcome of moving it it become a subpage of an active project Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understood more about how to create subpages and/or what they are, then I might agree that such a move is an acceptable outcome. Indeed, I might have structured all these pages that way to begin with, rather than the way I did it, if I had known there was a preferable alternative. Can someone point me to an example or information about subpages? Brianwc (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have left a mini tutorial on your talk page. Please talk to me if that is insufficient information. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If this makes sense to you and you decide to undertake to massage the historical projects into an excellent order in a manner such as this I undertake to withdraw this nomination for deletion (Note to the closer - I give this undertaking here). What we will have is a situation where Wikipedia wins and your projects and their history win. And you will have a new Wikiskill in your portfolio of skills. Such a solution appeals to my innate sense of neatness, and I am sure appeals you your own just as much. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - On its creation, the WikiProject was set to terminate when the Berkeley 2009 Cyberlaw course terminated. The project members were students in that Berkeley course and the articles worked on were decided as part of that course. I can see a historic importance to the Berkeley 2009 Cyberlaw course, but not to Wikipedia. The WikiProject was a collaborative effort primarily on something other than Wikipedia and secondarily on Wikipedia. The website for the Berkeley Cyberlaw course history is berkeley.edu/courses/235, which would be a better choice to record the efforts of the student course than Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2012 (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.