Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Prehistoric Mammals

 __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  Keep for now to see if it can be developed into a working project or task force. No prejudice against converting to a task force if a specific WikiProject wants it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Prehistoric Mammals
New Project, Portal and related Templates that serve no purpose to further Wikipedia, No discussion occured in regards to creating this project/portal with the Council, WikiProject Mammals or WikiProject Animals. Project has only one member who is very new. Zoo Pro  07:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm. I'll put a note on WikiProject Palaeontology. -- Klein zach  09:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Make it a palaeontology project task force maybe? FunkMonk (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or reorganise as task force I am amazed that this new user Pinguinus is still here given his talk page appearance. The scope of the new wikiproject is feasible, but agree it is, erm, rough around the edges. The subject matter is grossly underdeveloped on wikipedia, considering the subject matter is comparable to the dinosaurs wikiproject. The question is, how to best attract users to an underdeveloped area - as a defined task force and subsection of wikiproject mammals (in which case, should wikiproject primates and cetacea be reorganised as taskforces as well? I'm torn really, maybe as a task force with a field added to the template? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly task force. The fact the project is new is not a reason to delete it, nor is the fact it only has one member (which isn't surprising given the project is pretty new), and it's certainly not true that it "serve[s] no purpose to further Wikipedia". Possibly it could be turned into a task force of another project but that is not a reason to delete it. Hut 8.5 11:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete unless Palaeontology want to make use of it as a taskforce. The only alternative would be to userfy and ask Pinguinus to take it to Proposals. -- Klein zach  12:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not a taskforce under Wikiproject mammals? Can it be a taskforce of two wikiprojects I wonder...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it could be, but that would be up to the wikiprojects involved. I don't think anything should be dumped on them. -- Klein zach  23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think making this a taskforce for Wikiproject palaeontology would be a good idea, although there aren't many members of the wikiproject who specialize in prehistoric mammals (probably why coverage is lacking). If we can get enough members to work on prehistoric mammals, a taskforce seems like the best approach. Smokeybjb (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with it becoming a task force, I may have been a bit harsh in my approach to this, I suppose its been a tough week on wikipedia and real life Zoo  Pro  14:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems reasonable. Collect (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete wikiproject with one user, which wasn't proposed or publicized. If it is taskforced it should be part of WP:Palaeontology primarily, over WP:Mammals. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to see Prehistoric Mammals decently covered on Wikipedia. If a whole portal would help this goal to the maximum extent, I say do that. If a task force would help that better, make it a task force. Something must be done about Prehistoric Mammal coverage. That's all I have to say. Pinguinus (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Allow to develop if it will. It seems to bridge a gap.  (It is not necessary to obtain the blessing of the Council to start a project.  Considering the number of vocal members on the Council who seem to want to eliminate projects rather than foster them, it is not even a good idea for the Council to be involved in the creation of a project.)  JimCubb (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reorganise as task force That's my vote, if it wasn't clear from my first comment. FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and presumably reorganise as a task force if users like Cas Liber want to keep it going. However, I think it would be perfectly sensible to delete pages of a project created without discussion, and it may well be necessary to close and merge this project in the future. WikiProjects created like this one was won't neccessarily become genuine collaborations and may well become means to push one user's agenda—as sockpuppeteer AtlanticDeep tried to do and as WikiProjects are sometimes portrayed in discussions (such as recent ones of animal name capitalisation). &mdash;innotata 01:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep' Allow to develop - no malice intent here - However i will bet this warn welcome to WIkiprojects will deter any more progress by its creators.Moxy (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Make into a task force of WikiProject Palaeontology per various comments above. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 15:54, 18 April 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.