Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject King George's Fields

 __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. Long in active and too narrow of a scope to sustain a project. --RL0919 (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject King George's Fields
Sub page:
 * Template:WikiProject King George's FieldsMoxy (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Project was completely untouched from August 2007 until April 2010, when it was tagged inactive. This project clearly isn't going anywhere and has nothing worth keeping — it only ever had two members and <15 articles, which is too small for even a task force, and none of the talk page discussion is worth keeping. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Klein  zach  05:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The two members are currently active. You should advise them of this MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete-- per above. --E♴ (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral it's a shame, really, that it never caught anyone's imagination after I created it. Does it do any harm remaining there just in case? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most likely, but precedent is that we deleted WikiProjects if they're inactive and have nothing worth archiving. Also, as I said, this has what? 15 articles under its scope? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, precedent. I reman neutral in this deletion discussion, but precedent is used strangely in this august organ. We have a precedent for ignoring precedent, and we have a precedent for paying heed to it. The real use of precedent here is as a paradox :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The notion of precedence, especially to what it says about the threshold of what is worth archiving, is unclear here. Would TenPoundHammer find this pages less problematic if the inactive template were more obvious?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, the focus of the project is way too narrow to have an entire WikiProject devoted to it. I really see no point to keep it, tag or otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think the subject is highly focused, with few articles.  I don't think it worth a WikiProject.  There seem to be few sources, and I suspect that the current articles contain about everything there is to say without straying too far into WP:NOTDIRECTORY.  That said, I still think having this discussion is way out of proportion to the problem of leaving it tagged inactive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tag with template:dormant or template:inactive. 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, some editors could want to work on these articles but be uninterested in English collaborations per se. Deleting this is not going to magically make them interested in a broader wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides clutter, what do we gain from keeping it? Bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, is there a particular reason that MfD is being utilized for this? It may simply be my way of thinking, and I understand that there are likely many more participants here than there would be elsewhere, but this doesn't seem to be an optimal solution to me. Why not create an established process (or enhance an existing one) in order to deal with WikiProjects as a whole? Isn't this (at least partially) what the WikiProject Council is for? — V = IR  (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 19:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a link in the inactive tag pointing to establish, good guidance, at INACTIVEWP. Using MfD to address every inactive project is busywork and a poor use of the forum.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe: Please look at the number of inactive projects on WP (here for example). Only a small percentage of inactive projects, for specific reasons, have been sent to Mfd. I understand you are against the pragmatic approach that I and some other editors follow, but we should all endeavour to be objective. Inactive WP refers to identifying "projects . .  substantively [un]changed for several months". Here we have been dealing with projects inactive over many years. See also the deletion criteria in the guideline. Deletion can be "appropriate for completely inactive projects which have no substantive history and serve no residual purpose even without activity".  -- Klein  zach  23:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are a great many inactive projects. My fear, that I try to counter, is that people will start to flood MfD with great numbers of them.  Dams break starting with a trickle.  Flooding MfD would be a bad thing, and the alternative is to leave them sitting inactive as they are.


 * Several nominations have concerned WikiProjects where not only do I think there is no advantage in deleting and waste of time in discussing, but I think it is good to leave them waiting for someone to revive them. This made me think that the nominators, and !voters agreeing with them, even if they were being objective, were not using good criteria.


 * Deletion can be "appropriate for completely inactive projects which have no substantive history and serve no residual purpose even without activity", I agree. But this is a required condition, not a sufficient condition.


 * If nominators were to explicitly state a valid reason for deletion, I would be pleased. Reasons for deletion might include: Project focused on a non-notable subject; project focused on something unrelated to mainspace or the project; Project was focused on pages that were elsewhere deleted (like a tentative CSD:G8);  Project material is substantially inaccurate or misleading; project is so out of date as to be misleading, and there is no suitable redirect target; project is a poor quality parallel effort better covered by another one (delete and redirect).  Project was substantially not a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia.


 * “Few participants, no current activity”, alone, to me, is definitely not a reason for deletion, and where single-editor simple actions, such as tag, redirect to parent project or userfy (good for single author WikiProjects) have seemingly been overlooked, I feel the need to educate.


 * Note that I have not opposed this nomination and am even close to agreeing. I have asked some questions as I would like to better understand TenPoundHammer’s thinking.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that “Few participants, no current activity” is not a reason for deletion, so I have not nominated any projects on these grounds alone. The ones I brought here have all been defunct for matter of years not months, and their scope is so narrow that reviving them, as opposed to reinvigorating their parent genre projects, would not be positive for the encyclopedia. -- Klein zach  02:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The duration of defunctness doesn’t impress me, if the project aims are to cover continuing pages that could use improvement.
 * “scope is so narrow that reviving them, … would not be positive for the encyclopedia”. If you really think so, then it is a good nomination.
 * This WikiProject here has limited scope, and revival might lead to pushing WP:NOR too far. I have not said “keep”, although I don’t see the harm in archiving.
 * There have been a number of other discussions. If you would like me to reconsider a set of them, tell me on my talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 17 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.