Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville/FocusNoms

 __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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville/FocusNoms

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

A temporary idea in WikiProject Louisville that hasn't been utilized since the mid 2000s. Only a single project discussion links to it. There is no value in its preservation. Stefen Towers among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 08:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, a virtual G7, it was mostly Stefen’s work for many years, and I note that Stefen is well present at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Louisville. The G6 tagging was well out of order, G6 is not pseudo CSD for anything. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The WikiProject managers should be given much more weight than outsiders in how the WikiProject is managed. WikiProjects should self manage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * MfD should not be a decision making body on WikiProject management, beyond checking that the person wanting to delete things represents consensus at the WikiProject. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that a sentence representing this view should be added to WP:PRJDEL. I don't think that pages for which there is no explicitly stated policy reason to delete should be deleted (and there is nothing to suggest that making a page go away from the list of subpages to make it look tidy could be a reason going by existing PAG), but this could become a reason to delete that could connect with WP:DELREASON —Alalch E. 01:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Or maybe a new reason. At any rate, the bottom line here for me is that if a project page is fully project-bound, i.e. it wasn't part of a wider effort, then judgment of its historical value should rest with the project alone. I am fine with marking a project page as historical if it's reasonably of historical use to the project, but if it's not, I'd prefer deletion. Further, if a clear maintainer wants to represent the project regarding deletion of long unused minor/cruft pages or pages clearly designed to test an idea without boring project participants about it, that should be fine. I'd certainly put out notices on the project's talk if I was making a major change to the project, and I do (like when I recently renamed the Members page). This is about pure project maintenance. And I'll note for the whole discussion here that tidying for organization and decluttering is a fair, if minor, project concern that should be judged no more than peoples' housecleaning and and space management efforts in their living spaces. It's just work that occasionally needs to be done so there's less impedance to getting the more important stuff done. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 02:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep/blank and mark historical . /edit: switch to neutral, as I am conflicted between there being a much clearer motivation behind this nomination now and my belief that what is stated as the reason does not sufficiently connect with deletion reasons under policy, about which I could further make up my and maybe switch to delete; what follows is the original comment/ similarly to This page was a valid attempt to coordinate project work according to the "focus of the month" concept and is the most average historical page imaginable of which there are very many and they shouldn't be brought to MfD. This isn't MfD worthy. Deletion doesn't accomplish anything here, it doesn't save hard drive space, and isn't needed to hide anything from view. There's a substantive contribution by another editor which could be understood as a "substantial" contribution, and G7 is not going to be applied because it was contested appropriately within administrator discretion. When G7 doesn't apply it doesn't apply. "Almost G7" is not a reason to delete.—Alalch E. 12:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the "maintainer's view". I'd prefer not to look over useless clutter in the project's subpage list. This was a very temporary attempt at coordinating project work, and my "partner in crime" on that is retired from Wikipedia. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mark Historical - Nominating obsolete harmless stuff like this for MFD is another good-faith error, sometimes by editors who don't know about historical. There may be a myth that deleting old useless stuff saves hard disk space.  The amount of hard disk space, which is now solid-state memory space, required for almost anything just grows slowly but without limit.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not about hard disk space, it's about not wanting useless clutter in the subpages list. It's a distraction looking for things and seeing such things that should no longer be around. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete ancient junk of no actual historical value. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral between deleting and marking historical. The nominator has provided a reason, removing clutter from the subpage list.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as a stalled, attempted WikiProject, quite useless at the present time. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 17:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Sundostund, what do you mean by “a stalled, attempted WikiProject”? Do you want to delete the whole WikiProject? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I assumed this meant a "wiki project", in other words, a process within the WikiProject. It was indeed an attempted process that quickly decayed into non-use. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 02:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A wiki project. Ok. Thanks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2024 (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.