Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF (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  keep. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject The KLF

 * MfD1

Five member project started in 2006 that had died by 2008. (Previous 2007 Mfd was closed with an expletive by The KLF's founder.) Some discussions but arguably nothing worth keeping. -- Klein zach  05:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Consider tagging Inactive.  Same reasoning as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Porcupine Tree.  No reason to delete.  Inactivity is not a good reason to delete a once active WikiProject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry, Smokey, but the precedent is against you. Several past WikiProjects have been deleted for complete lack of activity (only in cases where no content is worth keeping), and this one is no exception. All of the members are inactive. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks to me to have past activity, content worth keeping, and more importantly, potential for future activity. The cost of keeping is very low, if clearly tagged as inactive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Ten Pound Hammer.--E♴ (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per SmokeyJoe. Tagging it as inactive gives the chance for it to be resurrected at a later point by other editors. It's had positive contributions in the past, and I see no reason to delete. Nomader  ( Talk ) 20:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is tagged as historical, so I see no reason to delete it. If editors are 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) 00:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk page of this WikiProject has discussions that are worth keeping. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The KLF/Archive 1: "I may have jumped the gun a little, but I've listed a selection of our best articles at Good articles/Nominations. Judging by the criteria and looking at some articles which have already been improved (for example Garbage (band)) I think some or all of them have a good shot and - if not - we'll at least get some feedback on what improvements need to be made. A win-win situation, then, I think (well unless we get totally shot down in flames of course!) --kingboyk 17:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)" And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The KLF/Archive 2: "hi, just browsed this cool project as requested... klf discography could easily become a 'featured list' once the chart position question marks are filled in or removed... k foundation is already close to FA material... surprised that their biggest chart hits (3am, last train, wtil and justified) are not marked with '(FA)' - maybe no sources exist? same with white room... doctorin the tardis is probably best bet for a song to become FA mainly because the title doesnt contains swearing!... finally anything can be put on peer review at any time so why not just put all the ones marked (FA) on there straight away? cheers. Zzzzz 15:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)" Cunard (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cunard: Why exactly are these old conversations worth keeping? -- Klein zach  03:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleting old conversations on WikiProjects is tantamount to deleting old discussions on article talk pages. These discussions provide valuable history about the development of the WikiProject's articles (in this case, some audited content in 2006). Today, they are worthy of being kept because they may contain suggestions about article improvement. That there are substantive discussions also indicates that the project was once active and productive and may, in a few years, be resurrected. To delete these discussions would only hinder such editors as they would have lost the past: what strategies and collaborations worked and what did not work. These discussions are a small part of Wikipedia's history. Why should history be erased when it can be helpful and enlightening? Cunard (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My answer would be that we are writing an encyclopedia, not writing the history of a project to write an encyclopedia. Leaving that aside, if the project pages are worth keeping as "part of Wikipedia's history" that implies there should be some kind of big, all-encompassing Wikipedia History Archive. Maybe a good idea, but I don't think we have anything like that at the moment. -- Klein  zach  08:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are miscontruing my argument. I argue that old talk pages are not deleted just because they are historical. Likewise, old WikiProject talk pages are not deleted just because they are historical. Both old talk pages and old WikiProject talk pages should not be deleted because they provide substantive commentary about articles .Cunard (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: No substantive activity. FloydRule (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That there is no substantive activity at the moment does not mean that valuable history should be erased. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: On a related note to these WikiProject MfDs:, would you comment at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion? Cunard (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cunard: You've got the wrong person. I have nominated some projects but I've never deleted any myself. -- Klein zach  08:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your nominations are causing this issue. If this issue cannot be resolved, the current WikiProject MfDs will have to speedy closed to prevent further broken links. Leaving WikiProject red links on numerous talk pages is unacceptable. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For instance, WikiProject The KLF is linked on many talk pages because its corresponding template, WikiProject The KLF, is transcluded on numerous pages. If this WikiProject were to be deleted, there would be red links across many pages. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Ten Pound Hammer said "only in cases where no content is worth keeping". I don't understand how that rationale applies here, as the project page and its talk page has a LOT of information pertinent to the history of the articles within its scope and helpful to improving those articles further, such as the To-do list. This is not a wikiproject with no content or history. As Cunard implied, if left simply marked inactive, a person wanting to resurrect this wikiproject in the future would have a great deal of helpful infrastructure, information and commentary likely still relevant to the articles. Article talk page archives give substantial context to article edits and edit summaries. Wikiprojects with this much history and information cover many articles. Even if inactive forever, it contains information about articles' history, addressing concerns, disagreements, and attempting to attain milestones which aren't duplicated in the individual article talk pages. TransUtopian (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The project is tagged as inactive already. Deletion might be appropriate for a WikiProject that never really had any substantive activity, but it looks like this project did indeed have significant substantive activity in the past, so deletion would not serve any beneficial purpose. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Task force? As some people want to keep this, perhaps it should be made into a task force of its 'natural parent' Electronic music? That would be possible though it should be noted that Electronic music is itself 'semi-active' and has no discussions other than external circulars. -- Klein zach  23:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the discussions on the talk page are preserved, I do not object to any changes in the categorization or labeling of this WikiProject. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, but are you willing to do the (probably time-consuming) work involved? -- Klein  zach  00:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no knowledge about what making this into a task force would entail so will be of little help in this regards. Cunard (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read this. -- Klein zach  00:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to learn about creating a task force. Why do you want to make an inactive project into a task force when no one will be involved in it? Why not leave the WikiProject page as is? Cunard (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The whole point of making a project into a task force is to involve a wider group of editors. Editorial support for popular music has collapsed over the past three to four years. The intention is to consolidate the active 'genre-based' projects and re-invigorate them. If new contributors just find one dead project after another they will assume the whole thing is dead and give up on Wikipedia. -- Klein zach  01:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You think that many editors are deterred by inactive wikiprojects? I believe that they'll be inspired with how much work has gone into shaping the articles, and want to contribute to update the articles on a band they're interested in. They'll might want to see the project linked in places such as Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 5 "1/3 of the articles within the scope of WP:KLF have the GA badge and it's been such a boost to us to get some feedback and quality recognition before going through the long, stressful FAC process. --kingboyk 12:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC))"
 * and Featured article candidates/1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?), which became featured. Besides the article talk page banners, there are quite a few links in user talks and article review/candidacy processes. I wouldn't object if Wikiproject Electronic music wants to appropriate it as a taskforce into itself. As to redirecting it, I think that less than ideal for some contributors, especially a new one, who may not think to click the "Redirected from" link, the history tab, and then a previous version, seeing only the Electronic music wikiproject. Wikiprojects with this much thought and activity put into it are like talk pages for multiple articles. Like an article talk page which hasn't been contributed to in awhile, an editor might think to carve out a niche there with small steps, aided if the wikiproject is still there. TransUtopian (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of deletions or the time-consuming creations of task force, perhaps inactive WikiProjects can be redirected to their parent pages. The history of the WikiProject talk pages would be preserved and the new contributors would be directed to the active projects. Would this solve the problem? Cunard (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But a redirect is a deletion. -- Klein zach  03:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Deletion removes the page history, whereas redirection does not. Cunard (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:RETAIN, adequately tagged as inactive. This is the kind of things that makes you wonder if wikipedia is losing its institutional memory, if not its mind. walk victor falktalk 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep historically valuable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * 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.