Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Families

 __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. Courcelles 06:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Families
This page was created in August and appears to have received no attention thus far as a proposed project. It is also user-specific (see the Special:Email link) and thus should be moved back to userspace. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  03:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy. No sign of collaborative activity or obvious use.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Far too soon to dismiss as not having any activity. Editor is active on WP, hence I would give "benefit of the doubt" on the "user-specific" bit as well. Collect (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy to User:S1312/Wikipedia Families  per . If this ever becomes active, it can be returned to the Wikipedia space. Cunard (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete. I concur with . The disclaimer on the page ("Also Know That This Is NOT Social Networking") only serves to reveal this project's social-networking nature. Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE. Cunard (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The following subpages of this project should also be deleted:
 * Wikipedia Families/Support
 * Wikipedia Families/Oppose
 * Cunard (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This project would directly encourage people to use wikipedia as a social networking site. Since it's a project that's fundamentally incompatible with our goals, I don't think it should even be given leeway in userspace. Gigs (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that encouraging and facilitating editor interactions and support is fundamentally incompatible with the project goals. It is not a stretch to compare this proposal with Editors matter.  This does not mean that I support this proposal, but as a project proposal related to project goals, even if we agree that it is a bad idea, we should not delete it for fear that we doom ourselves to repeat the same mistakes.  We also open up a vulnerability to accusations of censorship.  I still think this should be userfied as an isolated individual's idea, but suggest that those who find the proposal abhorrent should, instead of "delete", !vote "tag failed" (in addition to userfying).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We also open up a vulnerability to accusations of censorship. Editors frequently call the deletion of POV content, trivia, and anything else they disagree with, censorship. That some may consider the deletion of a page that violates WP:NOTMYSPACE censorship is not a policy-based reason for keeping the page. Cunard (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This page does not violate a reasonable reading of WP:NOTMYSPACE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A reasonable interpretation of WP:NOTMYSPACE reveals that the page prohibits social-networking pages. Cunard (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Social networking" was never intended to apply to notions of editor support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The same could be said of Esperanza. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! Like esperanza, this thing should be canned (tagged and/or userfied) but preserved for the record.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Esperanza had some content deemed to be encyclopedically useful (e.g. Admin coaching). This project has no encyclopedic content worth saving, nor is there any history to preserve, so it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is needlessly unkind to label the young author's efforts "no history worth preserving". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am merely stating a fact: this project never took off so there is no history (like Esperanza) to preserve. Cunard (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sam wrote 9 versions over 20 hours on the 13th of August. That is history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The history does not show that Wikipedia Families is a product of 20 hours of work. The user took a fifteen-hour-long break before adding a few paragraphs to the page. Nonetheless, I'll assume that the user spent a substantial amount of time preparing Wikipedia Families. User:S1312 has been active for several days since this MfD was initiated. That s/he has not bothered to comment here in support of this page does not indicate to me that the user wants this page's history preserved. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete the "oppose" and "support" pages. "Support" and "oppose" for any page should be a discussion on the talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete because the arguments above clearly show that this would encourage use as social networking site. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: Cunard's point: User:S1312 has been active for several days since this MfD was initiated. That s/he has not bothered to comment here in support of this page. This can be reasonably interpreted as silent consent for the nomination.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Wikipedia is not for social networking. If you want to have friends on Wikipedia, watch list them... Sven Manguard  Talk  06:48, 8 November 2010 (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.