Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationships (2nd nomination)

 __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: tag inactive. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationships


Undead WikiProject. May have actually been dead longer than alive. It was first marked "inactive" in 2005, then removed after someone joined in 2006. . .who never edited the main project page nor its talk page for months forcing someone the put the "inactive" tag back in 2007. In 2008, someone nominated it for deletion saying that the "Project has been dead for a long time", but it was kept after adopted it. After it closed, he never edited it again. In 2010, once again, it was marked "inactive". While there were a few signs of project activity in 2013, no one changed the "inactive" tag and not a single editor who added their name made any further edits to the project. After that until now, all constructive edits were mass edits and reversion of vandalism. Delete. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 22:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tag inactive and archive. Deletion is for things that should have never existed.  It is not a sensible use of forum time to review dormant old WikiProjects.  WP:Boldly archive them when you find them.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and put it out of its misery. I prefer to remove useless stuff and this is evidently useless. It's been marked inactive too many times. Legacypac (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your preferences, while largely admirable, tend to be knee jerk. There are many valid reasons for editors to want access to the old stuff.  Even if a bad idea, we don't delete because deletion of bad ideas dooms future editors to repeat the mistakes.  It was tagged "defunct".  That should be good enough.  It shouldn't require a forum and an administrator to deal with all old defunct things.  Deletion policy WP:ATD also applies. However, I suppose that when archiving, or tagging , the tag should replace the content.  Accordingly, I have blanked the content below the defunct tag.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tag inactive and let alone per SmokeyJoe. As it is inactive, it does no harm to leave it there, in case someone finds something useful to do with the information in it.  Pinguinn     🐧   19:12, 14 December 2017 (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.