Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Spain 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  Keep as a previously active project that has at least one editor wishing to keep it active. No prejudice against holding discussions about making this a task force of another project. --RL0919 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Football/Spain task force
Inactive project. Sandman888 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have spoken with the project creator, it has merely fallen aside - I have joined the project and proceeded to reactivate it by marking new articles for the project to cover. Now requesting closure as project is live again.  Barking Fish  19:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Speedy Close - I feel disappointed when I see nominations like this made, because it makes me suspect an ulterior motive in that the user who nominated this has had articles about Spanish Football deleted, and then this appears. It just feels wrong. The last article made/found was only 5 weeks ago by this project.   Barking  Fish  18:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it does seem a somewhat pointed nomination, but in any case, I don't think we need to delete an entire project after a few weeks of inactivity, particularly over Christmas. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the two of you are on about but nothing has happened in that task force for the last 12 months. Sandman888 (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In one second, not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Astonishing level of activity! In 12 months: a misplaced post! This surely justifies this task-force existence! Your ability, sir, to prove your point goes beyond the realms of mere common sense! I am utterly wrong to claim this doesn't deserve it's existence, and your suspicions about ulterior motives entirely justified! Sandman888 (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, back to the main "point" which is you want this deleted. I say there's no rush, another editor has already opted to keep the task force going, let's see how it pans out, hey?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Whatever little activity that possibly could be gained from "reactivating" the task force could easily be covered at WP:FOOTY. But if two (one?) editors feel so strongly about it, that's up to them. On an aside, I am uncertain as to why User:BarkingFish has unleashed an attack on my character in the opening keep (that the last article is only five weeks old is outright false, nothing has happened in the task-force for more than a year). The notion I had several articles deleted by the Spanish taskforce is also incorrect, I believe BarkingFish is referring to a match article that was deleted some time ago after participation by the WP:FOOTY project - not the Spanish taskforce (which again, is completely dead). I can only suspect ill will on his behalf, which is a shame in a collaborative project. Sandman888 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

STRONG NOTE: '''Let me state again that I have in NO WAY attacked you, or made rude remarks - I raised a suspicion which I'm entitled to do. You still have the option of attending and posting a Wikiquette alert if you consider my remarks a civility violation.  Barking Fish ''' 22:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A shame in the same way you've made a number of pointed AFDs? Let it go, let the community decide.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me one AfD I created that has "disrupted wikipedia to prove a point". Sandman888 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be here currently to nominate articles for deletion, all but one of which seems to be a speedy keep and a waste of a lot of resource. Sorry that Barca vs Real 6-2 was deleted but a load of AFDs won't reverse that.  Anyway, back to the matter, the task force appears to have some support so there's no need to delete it. Let's see what the community has to say.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Look I have nominated three matches, 1 pre-season friendly (that under no circumstances can be considered notable, and I doubt a majority of regulars in footy would agree with the current keeps. I have no idea why it has so many keeps.) 1 game from 1984 (that has one delete, but IMO is much more notable than the friendly game) and 1 game which had a previous AfD end in "no consensus" half a year ago. How can that possible be pointy? At least the last AfD establishes that records are inheritable notable, the previous AfD didn't. And it's not like they are in anyway remotely related to the Barca game so I don't get why you're making the connection. Sandman888 (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see, hey? No point in keeping on banging the drum. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - You're a participant of the project can't you Be Bold and inject some activity into the project yourself? Afro  ( Talk ) 22:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything works perfectly fine by using WP:FOOTY, there's no need for a separate Spanish task force, as all discussions, coordination etc takes place at WP:FOOTY. The task force is simply unused and unnecessary. Sandman888 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You bring up the point again of inactivity, which brings me back to my original question why can't you invite people who specialize, have a particular interest or have worked on improving the Spanish articles if its inactive this is surely the best way to generate collaboration in the task force. Afro  ( Talk ) 17:32, 30 December 2010 (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.