Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Porcupine Tree

 __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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Porcupine Tree
Project started in 2008 that attracted 10 members but soon died. Only one posting by members on the discussion page. Arguably nothing worth keeping. -- Klein zach  02:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, nothing worth preserving here — no discussions, minimal activity. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and optionally archive. The articles under "Under the scope" are a non-trivial navigation aid for editors interested in the project's focus.  Talk page is small, but not minimal, and not negligible.  WikiProject pages can be useful for WikiProject lurkers and drivers-by, and keeping these pages available has no suggested downside.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could the list of articles be turned into a navbox? I think it's highly unlikely anyone ever has, or ever would, find it on that page. The downside is that the Music project is replete with dead sub projects, which looks bad and discourage editors from going to the small number of genre projects that remain reasonably active. Also if you look at the project talk page, you'll see that it is all circulars from non-members. -- Klein zach  08:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You could turn turn the information into a navbox, but if it is old and unused, you are doing work for nothing and making a false impression that it is active, so I don't think it is a good idea. The information might also be out of date, or wrong.  Drive-by conversion to a navbox wold make a poor situation worse.  If the project is, like this one, very specific and inactive, better to tag it as inactive.  If the project is redundant, better to convert it to a redirect.    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There already is navbox for all PT-related articles.—indopug (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Inactive/redundant project. FloydRule (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This page was tagged as historical by the nom on 3 December 2010, so I see no reason to delete it. If editors were interested, in the future, in resurrecting this project, they would have to start from scratch if it were deleted. Per, I believe the benefits of keeping this page tagged as historical outweigh any downsides. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the future, interested editors can work on PT as part of WP:PROGROCK.—indopug (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom.—indopug (talk) 20:57, 1 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.