Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tamagotchi (2nd nomination)

 __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. T. Canens (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Tamagotchi


Very narrow WikiProject. It has 13 articles and 6 members. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  00:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag inactive per no valid reason to delete. It has 13 tagged articles, which doesn't necessarily mean that is the full extent of the project. Also, there is no minimum number of project participants required. That said, it might work better as a task force of WP:VG, but it should not be deleted. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 08:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how changing from "WikiProject X" to "X Task Force" suddenly makes everything better? All you do is change the namespace. It doesn't change the fact that the project was never active. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Task forces tend to attract more attention than a standalone project as they can draw upon the resources of the parent project. That said, I would be fine with redirecting it to WP:VG instead of keeping. It does have only a small number of articles. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support a redirect to WP:VG. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep . No reason to delete.  consider tagging inactive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to minimal actual activity, as opposed to expressions of interest, a redirect (to WP:VG?) makes more sense. Anyone really interested in the detail should be expected to review the history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It really does have only 13 articles. I searched and could not find any untagged Tamagotchi-related articles. Also, among the 7 editors in the project, one is indef-blocked, and only one other has even touched Wikipedia since 2009. Tell me how all of this is keepable again? (Furthermore, there is no discussion on the talk page, which actually redirects to the project page, further suggesting that the project was never active to begin with. And I would think "never active to begin with" is a better reason to nuke a wikiproject than most anything else.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per TPH. historic and inactive are used when there's a history that worth preserving. No evidence that there was ever any activity on this project. Achowat (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 35 revisions by 20 editors is a non-trivial history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But are any of those revisions significant? They don't look so to me — just minor tweaks here and there on the project page. There was absolutely zero discussion. Saying that it's keepable because the main page was edited non-trivially (which it wasn't) is ludicrous when the project never seems to have accomplished anything except for setting up a main page and a couple project-related templates. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of the 20 editors, probably not including the last or the minor template fixers, have demonstrated an interest in the WikiProject. They should be expected to have a non-zero probability of returning with some interest, and so they should find a redirect to the more suitable WikiProject, and be able to find the record of their past activity.  What good reason is there to not allow the redirect to exist with history behind it?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's being overly cautious for the sake of being overly cautious, myself. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * tag as inactiveJust in case, as SJ notes. Cost to WP of keeping it so tagged is zilch. Collect (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it considered so taboo to outright delete a WikiProject? This one never did anything, so nothing will be lost if it's deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete on the basis of inactivity, an empty talk page, low membership and very limited scope.  Super Mario  Man  22:08, 29 February 2012 (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.