Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Keep for now. The consensus is that this wikiproject, at the very least, deserves some time to prove (or disprove) its usefulness. The project could conceivably work concertedly to counter "undue weight", nominator's main concern, by removing extraneous material from articles within its scope. Xoloz 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedia
This is redundant, as we have other ways of improving of doing this: WP:HCP. Also, there is only one member, and it sounds stupid: "Wikipedia:Wikiproject Wikipedia". Andrew Hampe Talk 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC) A Wikiproject to improve all the articles on Wikipedia? This project is way too wide in scope. WP:Spotlight and other Wikiprojects fit this better than one catch-all wikiproject. --Andrew Hampe Talk 01:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC) New Reason for Deletion An impossibly small scope; Wikipedia-related articles already suffer from quite a bit of undue weight; a wikiproject to centralize it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Sean William 01:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is about improving articles on Wikipedia, not policies. And there's only one member because it's new. -Amarkov moo! 01:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a new and great project for Wiki-related articles. :) - Mr.Gurü ( talk/contribs ) 01:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (edit conflict x2) I think you misunderstand the purpose of this project and are nominating it under a false assumption. It's not for collaboration on the namespace, it's for collaboration on the mainspace Wikipedia articles (e.g. Essjay controversy, Criticism of Wikipedia). --tjstrf talk 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Neutral. An impossibly small scope; Wikipedia-related articles already suffer from quite a bit of undue weight; a wikiproject to centralize it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Sean William 01:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If there was undue weight, Wikipedia would be featured undeservedly (it's only a GA) and there wouldn't be articles in poor shape like the one for the Italian Wikipedia. Compare this to the featured Encyclopædia Britannica - excluding various Wikipedia versions (many stubs), this has more coverage on Wikipedia's mainspace than Wikipedia although Wikipedia has had more recent media coverage and contraversy. If your issue is with the various Wikipedia versions, I must point out that they did survive an AFD. —  Pious  7  02:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, my issue is with articles like this. Sean William 02:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That survived two AFDs, so your opinion is unsupported by consensus. If you have an issue with a particular article, please don't use it against an entire WikiProject. —  Pious 7  02:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're using articles surviving AFDs as a rationale for keeping a WikiProject. My !vote stands, and will continue to stand. Sean William 02:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you mean. You said that there was undue weight and didn't quite clarify. I at first assumed you meant with general coverage so I pointed out that there's comparable coverage of Britannica on Wikipedia. You then pointed out a particular article, implying that it shouldn't be there, and I pointed out two AFDs it survived. Perhaps you meant that Wikipedia is slanted in favor of itself? Then you haven't seen Criticism of Wikipedia. Perhaps you meant that a WikiProject on Wikipedia would expand Wikipedia articles greatly, mostly with pro-Wikipedia material? The existence of a WikiProject over these articles would probably balance it and organize it better rather than make it less neutral. The people that will edit Wikipedia-related articles probably would do so anyway, with or without a WikiProject. —  Pious 7  02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My primary reason for wanting to delete this page is a a very small scope. I'm speaking from experience. Just look at Articles for deletion/Essjay. I don't really care about the merits of the articles themselves; this is about a WikiProject. My undue weight sentence was simply an observation from viewing the past. Wikipedia has always had a hard time writing neutrally about itself. Sean William 03:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But the scope isn't really that small - there's probably over 100 articles (not all have been compiled and tagged yet, organization is one of the reasons for this WikiProject) and there's no set-in-stone minimum I know of for a WikiProject. I don't see how harm can come out of a WikiProject, especially if it adds as one of its goals to try to ensure the neutrality of the articles it covers. Wikipedia can cover controversial subjects neutrally, I don't see why it can't cover itself neutrally (e.g. Britannica has an article on itself). I think it's a lot more dangerous to leave a lot of Wikipedia-related articles uncovered by projects and up to individual editors than to have an extra level of oversight that can help. A WikiProject means a lot of editors will actively check Wikipedia-related articles, and NPOV is one thing that can be checked for. —  Pious 7  03:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I was not aware that there were so many individual language Wikipedia articles. I'm sorry. Sean William 03:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It makes sense, but I don't know if it'll work out. ~EdBoy[c] 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:SPOT is focusing on a specific article and improving it. As Amarkov said, this is a new project, and that its scope is to improve Wikipedia-related articles like the articles Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales.  V 6 0  干什么？ ·  VDemolitions 01:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's 71 articles (not counting the list) in Category:Wikipedias by language, and there's currently over 250 Wikipedias overall. Just those keeping track of those articles alone is enough for a WikiProject or Taskforce, and WikiProject Wikipedia includes people, events, and other Wikipedia-related articles as well. —  Pious 7  01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, we ARE Wikipedia. Get real, people, we don't need this. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying... we don't need it. It'll just become another idle and dead WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We are Wikipedia, but this isn't a WikiProject to cover all articles - this is a WikiProject to cover all Wikipedia-related articles. This is needed because there's probably a hundred or more articles (estimated by counting Category:Wikipedia and subcategory articles) related to Wikipedia, most of them not in the scope of a WikiProject (or in the scope of a general WikiProject, like Biography). This becoming idle and dead is pure speculation. —  Pious 7  10:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but my point is that because we are Wikipedia there is almost never a lack of focus on these articles. -- Ned Scott 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I don't want any hard feelings over this, so I'm going neutral. I don't think it's needed, and I see a potential for undue weight, but if you guys want to give it a shot then do so. -- Ned Scott 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. The project was created a month and a half ago. It now has exactly two members. I believe it has already been given its chance to prove itself a viable project, and has failed. Having said that, a broader project, with a less silly sounding name (Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikimedia or Wikis) would at least potentially be a viable idea and one which I would not oppose being given a chance. John Carter 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Expand to WikiProject Wikimedia, to expand the scope to other Wikimedia project articles and the foundation itself. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 05:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was considering doing that, but it wouldn't add too many articles to the scope if Category:Wikimedia Foundation and Category:Wikimedia projects are added and a WikiProject should be as focused as possible with a reasonable scope. —  Pious  7  10:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be a recent surge of deletion discussions about Wikipedia-related articles (such as the Wikiquote mass AFD). There's really no point in making a big fuss about avoiding self-reference.  If a few users find it productive to coordinate efforts on Wikipedia-related articles, who are we to stop them? Yechiel Man  05:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the interest in Wikipedia related articles, it is an excellent idea to have a Project to take a good long look at them Let us see whether this words and not strangle it at birth. --Bduke 12:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect statistics - It was created yesterday. A month an a half ago, a separate WikiProject was created that was to handle tasks (too similar to Community_Portal) and which had 2 members and was eventually removed in favor of a redirect to WikiProject Council. I replaced the redirect which nothing linked to but a relic of the old WikiProject, a userbox, in favor of a new WikiProject. I even asked the old WikiProject's founder on IRC for permission, which was given. The only thing the two WikiProjects have in common is the same name, and thus the same page. The old one is ancient history and unrelated! —  Pious 7  19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia should not be covering itself. And two members in two months doesn't show that there is a great need for this project, anyway.  Corvus cornix 18:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you use mistaken statistics. It was created yesterday, see my reply to the previous comment. As for Wikipedia not being able to cover itself, this argument seems a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT - Wikipedia exists, a large number of related articles exist, and if your issue is with Wikipedia having articles on itself, you should mass nominate the articles to AFD (which would fail, based on similar AFD mass noms in the past). As it is today, there's a lot of Wikipedia-related articles inadequately covered by the scope of WikiProjects and this is simply made to close the gap. —  Pious 7  20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not at all like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's about COI and undue weight. Don't get me wrong, I don't really care what you guys do, and I do think it's possible to have a project like this succeed, but I just wanted to point out that.. it wasn't an IDON'TLIKEIT kind of thing. -- Ned Scott 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But I think that a WikiProject to keep tabs on Wikipedia-related articles, focus the interest on Wikipedia articles to where it's really needed, and to handle any kind of tags for problems swiftly and orderly would probably prevent WP:UNDUE. As for WP:COI, that can be avoided by using material only in reliable secondary sources and clearly citing them, something a WikiProject could also help ensure. —  Pious 7  21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see your point on that. I had not thought about it that way before. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is just another wikiproject, so whats the big problem with it? Already, there are categories and even stub templates as specefic as to Wikipedia. Also, some say that Wikipedia should not be covering itself; but there are already articles on it, so, since it is already covering itself, why not a wikiproject to aid in its coverage and article developement? ♠  Tom   @  s   Bat   20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - in light of the comments about it being created only recently, I believe that the project page would best be moved into the reviser's userspace and listed as a proposed project on the Project proposals page. Also, if the two listed members are not in fact members of the new project, then their names should be removed from the list of members. As that would leave the project with no members, which clearly qualifies the proposal for deletion, I would very much suggest that the person who has revamped the project add his own name. And, again, if the proposed project finds that it does get enough interested parties within a reasonable time on the Proposals page, it should be considered for deletion if it remains in Wikipedia space. John Carter 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I recreated the WikiProject page from nothing so the memberlist is accurate. There's 3 members now, by the way. The proposals page does not claim to be mandatory (in the intro it says "can be used," not "must be used") so I do not see why it must be forced back to there. Since there are 3 members in under 24 hours, 19 tagged articles (although there's a lot more in the scope), assessment categories made, a WikiProject banner, and a WikiProject page, it'd be easier to just keep things as they are. —  Pious 7  20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No one said the proposed project page is mandatory. However, it generally is considered the best place to advertise the existence of a new project and gather new members. Any project, however, seems to be eligible for further discussion of deletion or merging elsewhere if it shows no activity for a given period of time. So, for the good of the project, listing it there is generally considered to be a good idea. John Carter 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't the best place, however. I listed this WikiProject there from last Wednesday through most of yesterday and no one joined (or even commented) until I actually made the project. I thus was bold (a needed factor of any wiki to get anything done) and followed WP:IAR (ignoring an optional rule, by the way) to get this started instead of lost in a giant list in a bureaucratic service. I expect more people will probably join WikiProject Wikipedia now (although the giant MFD tag probably doesn't look attractive would-be participates). This WikiProject has been given almost no time to get started before this MFD. —  Pious 7  21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment... How would WP:SELF apply to these, exactly? ~EdBoy[c] 20:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SELF is more of a style guideline that says to make articles usable outside of Wikipedia, and still make sense. Saying "here on Wikipedia" is a self-reference, and wouldn't make sense if the article was used somewhere else. So it shouldn't really be a concern for this situation. -- Ned Scott 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, it's irrelevant to articles about Wikipedia. ~EdBoy[c] 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, scope is large enough for a project. Whether we need it... if editors want to work on it, they should be able to.  Dei z  talk 05:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - a one-day-old project really does need time to prove itself. If it fails to do so - well, we might be back here again in a couple of months. Orderinchaos 06:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep, on the verge of delete, give it some time, and if it fails (which to me, seems inevitable) delete it.  *Cremepuff 222*  22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's face it. Wikipedia is notable. It should not shy from coverage of itself. Doing so would affect its quality as an encyclopedia. However, all Wikipedians have a conflict of interest when editing Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia. So this project should not be just about making sure Wikipedia has comprehensive coverage of itself. It should be about ensuring such articles are neutral and that Wikipedians editing such articles do not make them biased and praise Wikipedia. It should be about ensuring that such articles have information that is notable and relevant outside of Wikipedia, and not information that is fancruft and only Wikipedians care about. It should be about avoiding self-references. There are a lot more things it should be about, but I don't have time to say all of them. --Kaypoh 14:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because Ned Scott thinks we don't need it; that is, I don't think he understands or appreciates why we have wikiprojects, and is one of few who is troubled by the rare overreaches of some members of said projects -- this I gleaned from earlier exchanges. My official reason for the Keep is that it is perfectly valid to have a project to take care of and improve a rational grouping of articles, especially surrounding a topic that is as notable as the Wikipedia has become. By the way, I will not be responding to Ned's expected response to this position. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 22:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My feelings for this WikiProject were not strong, and I changed my position to neutral. I'm very active in several WikiProjects, and I encourage their use. Pious7 pointed out to me that such a project could help keep undue weight in check, which has gotten me thinking that this isn't such a bad idea after all. Your comments are not only rude but completely inaccurate. -- Ned Scott 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but with the condition that a WikiProject Court Trial will be created, the only way we can avoid future discussion about pointless projects. -- Andersmusician  $  15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure if we need something that formal sounding, but the idea of a WikiProject review has been brought up before, and might be worth looking into. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and advise nominator against such nominations in the future. It's beyond ludicrous to even consider deleting a volunteer collaborative effort directly aimed at improving articles in the mainspace.  Time wasted nominating this project would be better spent avoiding it if you aren't interested in the scope of the wikiproject.  Milto LOL pia 16:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not really ludicrous, it's fairly standard. WikiProjects show up on MFD all the time. The idea is to delete only when a project is counter-productive in some way, or something to that extent. While it is often given a negative few, MFD isn't always a bad way to discuss such things. Notice that both noms are no longer pushing for delete? I myself can't find any strong objections anymore. Discussion is healthy, and should not be feared. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep not a bad project, but it could be better if it focus not only at Wikipedia, but at the entire wiki concept and its development. WooyiTalk to me? 02:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A WikiProject Wiki? Not a bad idea.. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, reasonably wide topic, and as long as it is active and working, there's no problem. Expansion is not necessary, but it may be something to consider in the future. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 04:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Rename WikiProject Wikimedia foundation to expand the article base to something reasonable. Subjects could then include Wikibooks etc. There are WikiProjects on individual bands and similar fancruft around the place - this is perfectly fine but should be expanded to the broader scope. I arrived here looking for a project on the Wikimedia foundation so I could tag and assess Wikibooks but found a project just a tad too specific to fit the article. Broader projects should always be created before their subprojects, and I don't think a Wikipedia specific project would ever be needed. The undue weight argument is just a good reason to keep the project - to ensure there is no undue weight. Richard001 04:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a WikiProject. Jet123 (Talk) 04:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Rather small scope, but keep. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 18:09, 26 May 2007 (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.