Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/San Jose Earthquakes 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 No consensus. No consensus to disband this WikiProject Taskforce (even a task force with only three or four actual members as the others were accounts created that have no edits except for this discussion and adding themselves to the wikiproject and have been reported to WP:SPI to be investigated and dealt with) and while WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects says it is generally inadvisable to create task forces without prior discussion it doesn't prohibit it. (non-admin closure) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Football/San Jose Earthquakes task force


The creation of this task force was never proposed at any recognised forum, and since then, two experienced editors at WP:FOOTY (User:GiantSnowman and myself) have expressed misgivings about its creation. We already have a US/Canada soccer task force, and although we have task forces for Seattle Sounders and DC United, those were approved and have been reasonably active since their creation. – PeeJay 19:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - its creation was not approved and this task force is not needed, we already have USA and Canada which is more than sufficient. I'd also suggest we get rid of Seattle Sounders and DC United, but that's another discussion for another time and place. GiantSnowman 19:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think this taskforce should stay. I didn't realize there was protocol for getting approved taskforces, since I didn't see they were laid out in the WikiProject Football/Task Forces and sub-projects page, so I apologize for that. I did know there would need to be several members interested, and so a small group has already been gathered as you can see here, people who specifically want to focus with like-minded fans on Quakes articles. People who care about their club and working specifically with like minded people will get the job done better than working as a small part of a large taskforce: for example 6 of the 8 Featured Articles in the USA and Canada Task Force are related to the Seattle Sounders and DC United, two clubs which have their own taskforces. Quite a few of the good articles are related to these two clubs as well. I don't think that is a coincidence. I doubt that all these articles would reach FA and GA status if they were only held under the USA and Canada umbrella. The Quakes are a team that have been around in different incarnations for 40 years, so there is plenty of material that this taskforce could focus on and which may not be given the same coverage if it was just under the USA and Canada taskforce. -- Christiangamer7 (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Another reason the taskforce should stay, or at least be approved, is the fact that the Earthquakes are the premiere soccer team in the Bay Area, and specifically the Silicon Valley, an area well known for its technology minded population. Fans in the area expect to find a vast wealth of information about local teams online, and Wikipedia is arguably the most common place people find such information. If this taskforce is deleted, I fully expect another one to immediately be approved and take its place. A precedent has certainly been set when it comes to taskforces for individual MLS teams, and now both researchers and fans of the San Jose Earthquakes are ready to fully contribute as well. - Laxed (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - A dedicated taskforce will help keep articles up to date better than a more general taskforce. For example, I visited the 2014 San Jose Earthquakes season page and it was at least a month and half out of date. This taskforce will help alleviate the work load of the USA and Canada taskforce and help keep relevant Quakes articles up to date. - QuakesWC (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nominee and GiantSnowman. The current "members" can join the other taskforce and simply focus on this subject, but it would be better if they had more, experienced editors working with them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – To those who have voted to keep, what's stopping you from collaborating without a task force? There are currently few enough of you and few enough articles to monitor that you could probably collaborate via your own talk pages. The San Jose Earthquakes are not a big enough team to warrant this level of attention. – PeeJay 14:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is easier to function and coordinate with a taskforce than without one. We get to use certain tools that we wouldn't have without a specific taskforce (i.e. Quality/Importance ranking tables) and have a core single talk page to discuss just Quakes editing. I don't understand why there are "too few" articles or users. As stated in the WikiProject Football/Task Forces and sub-projects page "The subject must be large enough to attract enough interested participants but small enough that editors are not overwhelmed with tasks. Conversely, the scope can not be so small that only a few editors are interested in the topic." The Earthquakes franchises have been established for a combined time of over 30 years, with other Bay Area soccer teams related to the club filling up another 10 years. I feel like it is simply a matter of opinion on whether their history is too small. Just because they haven't been around for 100 years doesn't mean they aren't worth their own taskforce. Looking at Seattle and DC United whose franchises have been around for 30 and 18 years respectively, their articles span enough time as to warrant taskforces. As I pointed out above, their related articles make up the majority of the USA and Canada taskforce's featured articles. I believe this is because the taskforces are focused enough to create quality articles on what the users care about. As for users, that same task forces and sub-projects page says that a taskforce should be about 10-20 people, and in its first week this group already has just about reached its 10 mark. Also, having a sole San Jose Earthquakes taskforce makes it easier to recruit and bring in people who are new to Wikipedia but want to edit Quakes articles to have a central place to talk with people who care about the same work that they do. They'll easily know who is interested in their same subject matter and what articles to tackle first. Basically I feel that this is in someways "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built.". If there are in anyone's opinion "too few" users, it is because this taskforce was created only a week and a day ago. I can understand if this taskforce needs to go back through some protocol, but simply deleting it because it is viewed that the scope or userbase is too small doesn't add up with any Wikipedia or Wikiproject Football policy I have read. --Christiangamer7 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 18:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I felt I needed to address a lot, and so I did. It would be helpful if instead of merely leaving "TL;DR" you add some other comments as is pointed out in the TL;DR page you linked me to. I may leave something out on accident, but if I were to sum up my points it would be: A specific San Jose Earthquakes taskforce makes it easier to coordinate and recruit, the Featured Article quality work from Football taskforces seems to come from club focused ones as I pointed out above, and there is nothing out of line with this taskforce in comparison to what I've read on Wikipedia's and WikiProject Football's taskforce policies. --Christiangamer7 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, in greater detail then - you have not provided a reason why this particular club merits its own taskforce. All your arguments that you are churning out are simply arguments for the existing US/Canada taskforce, not for this club-specific one. GiantSnowman 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out before, the majority (7/8) of the USA and Canada taskforce's highest rated articles are from club taskforces. (5 from Seattle, 1 from DC and Seattle, and 1 from Arsenal). Why should this taskforce be eliminated if history shows that club taskforces produce such high quality articles? I still haven't heard why in regards to any policy this taskforce shouldn't exist. As I said before, everything on Wikiproject Football's page on Task forces aligns with what this taskforce is. There is not a guideline for "specific number of articles required", only a guide on scope which is to be focused enough to narrow down editing tasks and large enough to gain several editors. As I said before, I'm new to all this and so I'm open to hearing how taskforces should work, but I want to know how they work in regards to policy. From all I've read, this is a proper taskforce. --Christiangamer7 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ...I'm still not hearing reasons to approve this task force, I'm just hearing reasons to improve the existing US/Canada one. GiantSnowman 19:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? I think I literally just gave a reason to why there is an advantage to club taskforces in the fact that the club taskforces have higher rates of Featured Articles. What do you think should happen with this club taskforce and others? Also do you mind answering my question about policy? I'm confused because I am just being told this shouldn't exist, should be merged, used as a means of improving another task force, etc. but not hearing why. --Christiangamer7 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How many members of Seattle Sounders task force are also members of US/Canada - probably all. And what about all the other FAs at WikiProject Football? A much bigger sample size. It shouldn't exist because we do NOT need a taskforce for every single bloody club, especially one with no achievements or history of note. Allowing this task force to remain - especially when it was not approved by the community in the first place, something which in my eyes should mean an automatic delete - sets an incredibly poor precedent. GiantSnowman 19:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So you view there is harm in having a taskforce for every club that has interested members, I can understand that but I feel there is no real harm to it. USA/Canada already being there was referenced as a reason for deleting this and so I specifically talked about USA/Canada's FAs. Even if all those Sounders taskforce members are members of USA/Canada, there is no subproject focused on their club. That's why there's a task force established. If there was a mechanism to make central projects for USA/Canada that focused on the Quakes, with similar advantages of a taskforce I would more than likely be glad to use that. In regards to the lack of community approval, I already said I didn't realize it was needed and am willing to do whatever has to be done through policy to get it approved. I agree with you that it was incorrectly established but it isn't as if it needs to be permanently deleted as a means of a lesson. I feel like this discussion isn't about WikiProject Football's policy for this not to exist as a taskforce (beside what you already pointed out in regards to community approval) and only that the club apparently doesn't have enough achievements or history. -- Christiangamer7 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per the above, this is not a task force that has been approved by WP:FOOTY. Whether it would be approved or not is moot. I do not think it is to the benefit of WP to set a precedent whereby taskforces, which inherently convey a sense of authority, should be set up without the approval of members of the parent project. With regards to this specific club, with the number of current active participants it seems overkill, I agree with the comments above that working on SJE artivles as part of the wider NA football taskforce would encourage greater collaboration and arguably a more objective set of articles in the long run as I am concerned the small number of active editors would ultimately fall victim to subjective opinion and the temptations of listcruft. Fenix down (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2014 (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.