Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Van Halen

 __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. --RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Van Halen
Only 9 members (it was 11, but two were indef-blocked). Absolutely no discussion relevant to the project ever occurred on the talk page. Nothing at all worth keeping; project has been dormant since 2009 at least. No articles were ever assessed or anything.

If deleted, also remove the following pages:
 * WikiProject Van Halen/Navigation
 * Template:WPVANHALEN Tasks
 * WikiProject Van Halen/Members
 * WikiProject Van Halen/Article requests
 * Template:WikiProject Van Halen
 * WikiProject Van Halen/AssessmentMoxy (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And all the relevant categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete-- per nom. --E♴ (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete-- per nom. -- Klein zach  23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.—indopug (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not accurate to say articles were never assessed. They were all assessed, but when the project banner was set to inactive, all the assessments were removed. That being said, I'm obviously not active and no one picked up the mantle, so probably not worth keeping. It can always be restored if someone is interested. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I re-tagged as inactive.  Nothing requiring deletion.  Worthy of revival.  The talk page comment is one that absolutely should not be deleted.  There is no cost in keeping these pages, if properly tagged.  Deleting them makes revival more difficult.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag inactive. The scope definition - which is fine in this case - is a useful way of grouping the articles such that a new group of people dedicated to improving the topic can take over. Orderinchaos 09:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as a basis for further work; the topic is unlikely to be abandoned.    DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tag with template:dormant or template:inactive. VH are notable enough that there is a reasonable likelihood of >2 editors at some time in the future getting together to work on articles. There is no nothing to be gained by deleting this. Arguments about overspecialisation are not valid. It all depends on what level editors want to work on. All a wikiproject is is a nexus and discussion point. Hypothetically, five editors could want to work on VH articles but be uninterested in rock music collaborations per se. Deleting this is not going to magically make them interested in a broader wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because something is dormant, doesn't mean it needs to be deleted, eh? Keep -- Y not? 04:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete-- per nom. MoondogCoronation (talk) 11:04, 12 March 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.