Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Keep It Simple

 __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 Move to Keep It Simple. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Keep It Simple


Largely defunct WikiProject with no articlespace scope and a rather ill-defined userspace one (basically a rival to the userbox system). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * keep but rename. This is not really a project, but should be a WP: page.  Alternatives to userboxes are OK. Also telling people about alternatives to user boxes is OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazing. It's called "Keep It Simple", but looking through it, it seems rather complicated (by comparison to just entering "My name is John Doe. I live in Miami, Fla. and I like pizza"). Delete. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep a lot of users like the system but make it a WP: page silly  billypiggy ''¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE! 16:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect if a viable target can be suggested. 2007-2008 project which produced one archive page. Certainly shouldn't remain as a WikiProject. -- Klein zach  08:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird. The content and array of userboxes are not simple.  Not a functional wikiproject.  Redirect to Keep it short and simple.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Keep it short and simple per SmokeyJoe. -- Klein zach  00:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Keep it simple" - a redirect seems less desireable as losing the content which is not the same. Collect (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that forking Keep it short and simple is counter productive, and specifically contrary to the intent of both pages. I don't think the content is particularly useful, but accept that someone else may be able to take something useful from it.  However, it would take some effort, and without that effort, I think the content oonly confuses the attempted message.  This is why I think the content is best behind a redirect.  Anyone can dig it up and use it, but they should be aware that they are digging up something that we've decided to bury.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename per Graeme's reasons above. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 16:39, 14 December 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.