Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Guns N' Roses (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  Keep as a project with past activity that might be revived. Currently tagged as inactive. No prejudice against converting into a task force of a broader project, but that is left to editorial discretion. --RL0919 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Guns N' Roses
Sub pages Project started in 2007 that lasted about a year. Some discussions but arguably nothing worth keeping. Had 14 members plus guests. One previous Mfd. (one subpage: WikiProject Guns N' Roses/List). -- Klein zach  02:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Guns N' Roses
 * WikiProject Guns N' Roses/Left panel
 * WikiProject Guns N' Roses/List
 * WikiProject Guns N' Roses/Participants
 * WikiProject Guns N' Roses/Tasks
 * Template:WikiProject Guns N' Roses
 * Template:User WikiProject Guns N' Roses Moxy (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete--per nom. --E♴ (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, most members are long inactive so I don't see this getting anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 07:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as tagged. Significant ground work done, and worthy of revival.  Well covered by INACTIVEWP (linked in the tag).  No purpose of deletion here, unless you mean to ensure that it goes no further.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Coherent whole, capable of being revived - pretty much per SmokeyJoe. Inactivity *alone* isn't a good reason to disband a project unless there's a problem with the project's rationale/aims/scope. Orderinchaos 09:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as a basi for further work. There is no deadline on improvements.    DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * General comment I don't think it would be good to revive this — or the other single artist/band project nominated in the last few days. These projects were overspecialized. They diverted energy away from the main genre projects, produced poor quality articles (with low editing standards) and confused would-be contributors hoping to join productive editorial groups. Most of the projects were essentially vanity affairs, which is why they were abandoned, usually in a matter of months. Last time I counted there were about 150 music projects, of which less than 10% were active. (How many other areas of Wikipedia are like this? ) So if you have a serious, specific reason for ivoting 'Keep' to revive one of these projects, that's absolutely fine, but otherwise please don't block the attempted cleanup. Thank you. -- Klein zach  07:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Using deletion is not the wiki way. If what you say is true, the appropriate thing to do is to (boldly) redirect to the active, not overspecialized, WikiProject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there should be a specific reason for redirecting. Also, how acceptable would it be to other editors to do redirect-type deletions - without prior discussion? -- Klein zach  07:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The specific reason would be to alert editors interested in collaborating on rock music articles that there has been a wikiproject dedicated to a specific band, and thus to facilitate formation, communication and collaboration in the future if so desired. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Klein, "redirect-type deletions" are not deletions, as any editor may reverse them. If you are confident that you are right, that the project is long inactive, and it is redundant to a better formed other WikiProject, then WP:BOLD redirection, even without prior discussion, is entirely appropriate.  One can attempt to pre-discuss things to a fault.  There is a reason B comes first in WP:BRD.  If you are not boldly confident, propose redirection on the talk page.  When you find you have a week of silent consent (as expected at an inactive wikiproject), then do it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This Mfd process here is the best one available. It attracts a reasonable number of interested editors. -- Klein zach  01:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here looks to be particularly interested in Guns N' Roses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tag with template:dormant or template:inactive. The gunners are notable enough that there is a reasonable likelihood of >2 editors at some time in the future getting together to work on articles. There is no nothing to be gained by deleting this. Arguments about overspecialisation are not valid. It all depends on what level editors want to work on. All a wikiproject is is a nexus and discussion point. Hypothetically, five editors could want to work on gunner's articles but be uninterested in rock music collaborations per se. Deleting this is not going to magically make them interested in a broader wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Could those involved here pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council,Moxy (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just notified Talk:Guns N' Roses. I see it has 552 watchers.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, tag as inactive or redirect to a bigger project. I see no reason to delete (as per advice at Miscellany for deletion/Front matter). Mlm42 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. per nom. Long inactive project. MoondogCoronation (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep/tag It is completely counterproductive to delete project history, especially where there is nothing objectionable about the content.  Skomorokh   13:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. With rare exception, single-band Wikiprojects simply do not work. If a group of editors want to collaborate on a band's articles, all discussions remain on the article talk pages, not the WikiProject.—indopug (talk) 02:26, 22 March 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.