Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Africa task force

 __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. JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Football/Africa task force


This task force was created without any discussion at either WP:FOOTY or WP:COUNCIL. No pages link to this task force and it appears never to have got off the ground. This nomination probably could have been speedied, but I felt it would be reasonable to open it up for discussion first. Nevertheless, if any admin believes that this page fits with WP:CSD, I hope they will have the foresight to close the discussion early. – PeeJay 13:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 13:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tag as inactive. Although this task force has apparently never had any members, it does seem like something that ought to exist eventually. Not deleting the page will make things simpler for some future editors who do want to have such a task force, and thus alleviate systemic bias. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How can a task force be inactive if it's never been active in the first place? Also, surely if something "ought to exist eventually", people would have shown interest by now? The page has existed since April 2010 and it's only had three edits since it was first created: one to correct a link to a template, one to nominate it for deletion and one to correct how the page sorts in a category (and those last two were by me!). There is clearly no interest in this task force, it was created without authorisation and should be deleted for those two reasons alone. – PeeJay 18:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The inactive template documentation says that a project is inactive if:
 * there are no editors listed as members or
 * there have been no significant changes to the main project page for four months or
 * there have been no discussions on its talk page for four months.

This task force meets all three of those criteria. The criteria don't say that the page had to be active before it could go inactive. (I'm assuming that the same criteria apply to a task force being inactive as would apply to a project being inactive.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, what's to stop people from just creating random WikiProjects and task forces in the vain hope that someone else will take care of them. The creator of this task force clearly has no intention of continuing work on it; the task force page isn't even finished! Since WikiProjects have the right to determine the way they work for themselves, I could easily go back to WT:FOOTY and get a consensus to delete the page right now under speedy criterion G6; I only brought the discussion here as a courtesy. If you think it's worth keeping, I suggest you work on it yourself; if not, it should be deleted. – PeeJay 18:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like it was made in-hopes others would work on it - and this did not happen. Just FYI - There is no need to ask anyone at any time to create  a project or tastforce or even a article or portals etc...- its simply a recommendation and certainly not a reason for deletion.Moxy (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not only did it never get off the ground, but it never had any members except User:Example (a joke?) and the main page was minimal. Some taskforces are stillborn, but this one was barely conceived. -- Klein zach  03:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Never even got off the ground. Argyle 4 Life  talk  23:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A project described as "inactive" suggests a period of prior activity, which this project did not have. There are no historical reasons for keeping it. Zangar (talk) 15:55, 6 September 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.