Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Santana

 __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  Redirect and userfy  The rough consensus here is clearly to delete the Wikiproject. However, Moxy correctly points out that the guidelines indicate that we're not supposed to go with a full deletion but, rather, something softer. As far as I can tell, WP:Wikiproject Music doesn't do task forces for individual bands, so that option is out. Given that the entire project had less than 50 edits, and had over 4 months from it's initial start until it was marked inactive, Moxy's argument that there could have been something here does not seem accurate, and thus leaving it tagged as inactive is also not appropriate; thus, redirection seems like the remaining option. However, as with all deletion closures, the admin can userfy the info, so I'm going to move the article to Moxy's userspace. If at some point in the future Moxy believes that xe can get enough people to make an active project, then xe can contact me and we can discuss moving it back to active status. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Santana


same as WikiProject Miles Davis ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite  13:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep /userfy as per our guidelines - Could we get a reason why this project that is less then a year old is being considered for deletion? And has the nominator seen the guidelines above that say " It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as inactive, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active should not be tagged as historical, reserve this tag for the only the most influential projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Moxy (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete since it never even got started, the creator of the project is asking for deletion, and it was created without consensus to do so. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This never got started at all, so there isn't anything worth keeping.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - TPH has explained the reasons. Before starting the project it should have been proposed. This was never done, so failure was a foregone conclusion right from the start. -- Klein  zach  10:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Moxy is listed as a co-founder. Moxy, do you see any likely prospect of work on this?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I made this by request as i have done for many many  of projects  - What has happened is the project was tagged inactive within the first 5 months of the project starting  by involved editor. This caused the project to stop in its tracks. As mentioned many times before editors should give projects a chance. Not sure how projects are to get up and running if there tagged inactive so fast. Do I think the project can help - I sure do as all the related articles need lots of help. However music projects do not attract lots of mature editors so not sure this will grow much bigger.Moxy (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This kind of maverick project is actually harmful, because it draws potential contributors away from the relevant parent genre project. There is ample statistical evidence for this: see here. -- Klein  zach  06:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So your saying your tagging all the music projects because you think there useless? What we need is more adults in the music field not those that wish to tell others what to do and how they can get together and work. I deal with 100s of projects and only the music ones seem to have this problem. I am pretty sure that someone with a dislike for this projects should 'not be tagging them at all. Still waiting as to why -->  reply!. Moxy (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Moxy: You object to the deletion of WikiProject main pages that you have set up, redesigned, or revamped, right? Many of these are inactive or defunct, correct? -- Klein zach  03:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Many have been converted to taskforces or deleted with my "vote" to do so (just not so fast). I have help/edited as of Sept 11 2011 -  2521 projects (not to mention many of there sub-pages). The main  thing that i have realized  over my time dealing  with all kinds of projects is that projects for the most part lead to collaboration on the part of editors interested in the same topic This then lead's to  article expansion and overall referencing improvements. Projects are simply pages  that try to help organize topics -   even if they are simply used by one person they are of benefit. Example - A  project redirect to User:Volcanoguy/Volcanism of Canada Workgroup were one  editor keeps things organized for use all to see and utilizes. If a project helps just one article its worth it - as we have no concerns here for space being used by our editor's in a productive manner. A project is not different then a user page (they are not seen in main space and have to conform to polocies set forth by our editors). Further more deletion of a project does not save space on "Wikipedia" as its technically only removed from public view but still takes up sapce if you will.  So what should we be doing for the projects? We should help them in anyway possible so they think they are welcomed and an asset to Wikipedia. Because this  encyclopedia was build on the efforts of many many editors collaborating in many different ways (the most common is by talk/user pages and by  projects).  Can someone  explain the benefits of deleting a page that is only removed from  public view - thus not saving space on Wikipedia servers to me?. I  see the deletion process of valid projects as a "kick in balls" (a slap in the face) to our editors that have taken the time to make this organizational projects. Why would we harass those that wish to collaborate on a project page over a user page or talk pages (or simply  a project page that is used for organizational purposes). Many many article talk pages and user pages are silent for a long time or go dead -  but we don't delete them do we? - so why are this projects  any different?  Do people think this process will encourage or discourage  people from participate in other projects? What we should not do is tag projects in there infancy as dead as this is not a benefit to anyone.  Moxy (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Closure, please? This has now been open for nearly a month. Can someone close it? Nothing remains to be said. -- Klein zach  00:08, 13 October 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.