Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Persian literature

 __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! 09:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Persian literature


8 member project started in 2007 and died in 2008 with only five articles and pages within the scope. Some discussions are minimal, nothing worth keeping since the project died. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  02:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect with history intact to WikiProject Iran. There are meaningful talk page posts that should be kept in the history (easily worth the neglibile cost).  There are many incoming likns that don't need to be broken.  Agree that the WikiProject should be closed down due to inactivity and narrow scope that is redundant with WikiProject Iran (and others).  Note: Persian is the official language of Iran, Tajikistan and one of the two official languages of Afghanistan.  Looking at relvant articles, especially Talk:Persian literature, of the associated WikiProjects (WP:WikiProject Afghanistan, WP:WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Central Asia and WP:WikiProject Literature), I think WP:WikiProject Iran is the most active and has the strongest connection.  WikiProject Persian literature/Assessment contains little unique content.  WikiProject Persian literature/to do might best be copied to a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran.  Some mention might be made of the associated page, Manual of Style (Persian).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I fail to see how any of the discussion is "meaningful". The scope is too small for a project. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fine project / Great project! As a proud Iranian, I immediately joined in! Ramtashaniku (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)" is to me a very meanignful comment and one that should not be suppressed. This sort of encouragement should be encouraged, not deleted.  I think Keep the talk page; redirect the project page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe: Ramtashaniku was a sock puppet that never got as far as signing in as a participant. Are you just trying to wind us up again, Smokey? -- Klein zach  00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am not, and never have, tried to wind anyone up or otherwise waste anyone's time. I did not notice that this user was found to be a sockpuppet.  While that takes the wind out of the sails of the example, I still don't see a reason to delete this talk page.  I think there is a good chance that it will be wanted for reading for reference in the future.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Just like any national literature, especially one going back several millennia, the scope is wide enough for a project. We are trying to encourage contributors from this and other under-represented regions, and the project should be kept alive for their benefit.    DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Dead project, that os covered by others. I don't see why the history would need to be kept; nothing seems particularly useful.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 23:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The record of users interested enough to sign up alonge is worth keeping. There is no reason why this shouldn't be revived (as an idea, granted there is no real material).  If someone wants to seriously expand our coverage of persian literature, making contact with past members of this would be a very good idea.  Someone so interested should be able to go back into the history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete because there is no substance on either page. The project never got going. Actually the scope of this project is not that narrow. It's an important subject. If a group of editors are willing to take it on in the future, I'm sure they will prefer to start again rather than bother with the debris of a half-hearted failure. -- Klein zach  01:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per our policy on this matter - best to follow guidelines rather then ones POV on the projects viability.Moxy (talk) 21:22, 3 August 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.