Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject TikTok

 __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:  no consensus. No one except the nominator is advocating deletion at this time. Some users pointed out that perhaps the guidance outlined at WP:COUNCIL/G should be made a requirement, namely that the proposal of new wikiprojects at WP:COUNCIL/P should be a mandatory step in their creation. Anyone is free to start a discussion to see if there is consensus for that in the appropriate venue. No prejudice against renomination if this project does not materialize into something useful after a reasonable period of time. (non-admin closure) —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject TikTok

 * – (View MfD)

Not proposed at WT:COUNCIL, and the backlinks show no sign of any discussion anywhere else. Per WikiProject Council/Guide, "A WikiProject is fundamentally a construct: its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal." This is just a page with no group. Wikipedia is littered with inactive or semi-active WikiProjects, and doesn't need another one. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC) WP:INACTIVEWP is about projects which fall into inactivity. It is not a license to create projects which don't get off the ground, let alone projects where no attempt is made to get them off the ground. CAPTAIN RAJU has of course been notified of this discussion, so if they have some reason for creating a stillborn project, they can explain it here. I am sure that they will do better than than Sulfurboy's petty wikilawyering and ad hominems. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless I'm missing something a project doesn't have to be proposed or approved at WT:COUNCIL. Looks like this project was just created a week ago, so it's hard to tell where anyone is going with this, but that's not reason for killing it in its cradle. Wikipedia being littered with inactive or semi-active Wikiprojects is not a policy based reason for deletion and comes across like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh. @Sulfurboy, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a lazy cheap shot, and a misrepresentation. The reason for deletion is that the page does not serve the purpose of a WikiProject, and its creator has made no effort to help it fulfil that purpose which is set out in WikiProject Council/Guide. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * CommentIf you took it as a cheap shot, that's on you. None of the reasons you provided cite a policy reason for deletion. And per the guide you mentioned "inactive projects do no harm to the encyclopedia". Have you even attempted to reach out to, a very experienced editor, to suss out why they created the page or their intentions? Sulfurboy (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your meaning is clear; attributing that meaning to my interpretation is another lazy, sleazy trick.
 * Comment I think you might be confusing someone having a differing opinion with an "ad hominem". Some good examples of ad hominems would calling someone responding to an MfD "lazy", "sleazy" or "petty". I'm sorry you're having a bad day. I hope it gets better. :) Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Having a different opinion is fine. Feel free to choose your own opinion, but don't misrepresent my opinion. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS my day was quite fine until someone decided to try to score cheap debating points my labelling my guideline-founded reason as "IIDONTLIKEIT", as if it was just a personal preference ... and then tried to evade responsibility for that misrepresentation. That's a lazy and sleazy technique from the schoolyard. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Waiting for a statement from User:CAPTAIN RAJU and for a clarification of what the issue is from User:BrownHairedGirl.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon, the issue is as set out in the nomination: that this project does not met the core criterion in WikiProject Council/Guide, and that no attempt has been made to satisfy those criteria. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - So can you point us to a policy or any level of consensus that says if a Wikiproject doesn't meet certain criterion then it is subject to deletion? Particularly one that was created basically a week ago? Or am I just going to get yelled at and name called again?
 * How about from that policy where it states quite clearly: "creating a WikiProject is technically as easy as starting a page titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Your Favorite Topic"? How did do anything that doesn't conform to that standard? Sulfurboy (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , - Sorry for the late reply. Tiktok is a social website like youtube. That's why I created the tiktok project. I think this tiktok project is good if it is on Wikipedia. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah it's all good. I'm not seeing a single policy and/or consensus based reason for this nomination, so you should be good to go. Sorry for the trouble. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: FWIW, I'm surprised that WikiProject Social Media doesn't exist. Steel1943  (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I advocate requiring new WikiProject ideas to pass through the WikiProject Council page, and development of new WikiProject creation criteria, such as a minimum two starting members, and a stated explanation of the new WikiProjects relationship and overlap with existing WikiProjects. This would be a project talk page discussion, not an MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep in the absence of an explanation of harm done by unnecessary WikiProjects, which are inward-facing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep it will be very helpful WikiProject and we can set certain policies and guidelines on how to establish notabiliy regarding the TikTok related topics. Yes I agree there are too many small inactive WikiProjects but I assume TikTok is an ever growing phenomenon and it has been widely used. We also have separate WikiProject for YouTube so we can have a separate WikiProject for TikTok as well. Abishe (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is there any gaurentee that any users will actually serve this wikiproject? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , has stated above he created it and presumably intends to work on it. Considering his experience, I feel a good amount of AGF should be extended to him. He might consider explicitly stating he intends to work on it though, thus the ping. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2020 (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.
 * 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.