Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics

 __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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Someone clearly wants it. (non-admin closure) &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 03:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics


Defunct WikiProject that is unlikely to be revived. Main page has not been significantly edited since August 21, 2014. The talk page has had only mass and/or automated changes after the date of May 6, 2014. Subpages are even worse. It has a popular pages report, which (like every WikiProject's Popular pages report) is regularly updated by a bot. The last time it was manually edited was 2013. The WikiProject's other two subpages have only ever been edited by their creator.

This WikiProject cannot remain here. It is too narrow to be useful and its two inactive subpages are misleading because people might think that they are actually watched and put requests there. This is a waste of data right now. I'm calling for the deletion of the main WikiProject page, its talk page, all of its subpages, and its category tree. The only things I'm open to keeping are the talk page template banner (which is useful infrastructure for parent projects to absorb) and the userbox (I'm not comfortable with deleting UBCR-compliant WikiProject UBXs). But other than that, this project needs to go. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm in favor of removing unused Wikiprojects like this. Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as inactive – there's quite a bit of significant discussion at archive 1 of its talk page. Graham 87 07:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * KEEP I am the creator of this project, and it is not "inactive", like whatever idiot who nominated this without even asking suggests. Several of the editors, including myself, are PhDs and Faculty in this field, and, consequently, are quite busy, but when we have time, we make significant upgrades to the pages within our domain at levels far beyond what usual editors can manage.  I was even planning on using it as the backbone for a class project next fall.  When this project was created, there was no "threshold" for popularity or activity, and it was approved without question - these are not the same thing as actual intellectual merit, as many wiki-bureaucrats often fail to realize.  Just because it isn't about Family Guy doesn't make it unworthy of WP attention, and, shockingly, if you want *actual* experts to contribute, you need to be aware they're often busy. HCA (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all I apologize for not asking you first, especially since Wikipedia does recommend asking participants in the WikiProject before declaring it defunct. With all due respect, however, the main reason I nominated it was because neither you nor any other human had directly edited anything in the WikiProject's infrastructure in years, including but not limited to:
 * Its main page which was unedited since 2014
 * Its talk page. The last non–bot, non–AWB (AutoWikiBrowser, abbreviated as AWB, is a tool used to certain changes to many pages at once) non–MassMessage was also in 2014.
 * Of the project's three subpages, 2 were only edited by its own creator with 1 one them having never been edited since around its creation. The other human subpage was one of the few pages (the only one?) of this project to be directly edited by a human this year having edited in January 2017, after having been forgotten for about 6 years. The Popular pages report is regularly edited by a bot, and so I am open to keeping it.
 * Do you see now why it was nominated? It looks like the members of the project forgot about it for years. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 00:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I do not see why it was nominated, as those are all terrible metrics. Wikiprojects aren't supposed to be a place where we all get together, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya, they're supposed to be a central repository for information about a set of pages dealing with a topic in need of improvement.  That we simply go out and fix things, rather than wasting time on such other nonsense, is a merit, not a flaw.
 * Since you admit you did not follow proper procedure, and since it is clearly active, I aks that you close this discussion immediately as "Keep" to prevent any further wasting of everyone's time on this. HCA (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep even if it were unused, deleting old Wikiprojects simply because they are old is an activity with downsides and no balancing benefit to the project. VQuakr (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep since someone wants it. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2017 (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.