Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject New Wave music

 __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 no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject New Wave music
. Relisted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)



Project started in 2007 and went dead in 2008 with 11 members (there were 13 members, two were indefinitely blocked). No discussion relevant occurred on the talk page. Nothing worth keeping. JJ98 (Talk)  20:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 
 * Delete per nom. (Almost no discussions, so no reason to merge with WikiProject Punk music.) -- Klein zach  05:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable scope, suitable for revival or assimilation.  The scope includes articles that can still be improved.  Had a decent membership.  There are lot's of incoming link.  Leave tagged "inactive" for someone with productive ideas to take an interest.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete-- per kleinzach. There are no useful discussions- nothing worth saving. --  E♴  (talk)  13:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * keep and mark as inactive I don't understand a redirect to punk, and deleting material would mean reinventing the wheel for future collaborations. Collaborative editing is what this whole place is supposed to be about, and I am not keen on removal of any material which facilitates this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.—indopug (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with SmokeyJoe; this WikiProject has a large enough scope to be a viable project and could potentially be revived. The project may be inactive now, but it was previously active and had a decent membership of up to 13 members. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is obviously heading for no consensus. I recommend in future that we all look at the discussions of projects sent to Mfd, to see whether any real collaboration ever took place. In this case it's clear that it didn't. Users sign up to become project members for various reasons, not necessarily intending to collaborate and contribute. -- Klein zach  13:53, 8 June 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.