Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/FootyClubTaskForces

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 to Delete - In addition, several commenters have suggested that all of these are not necessarily equal. Some may have discussion content worth individual assessment, for example. So, no prejudice against splitting this into two or more future noms to allow for discussion addressing this. Also, no prejudice against someone marking one or more if these as "Historical" at editorial discretion (keeping WP:BRD, etc. in mind, of course). - jc37 01:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FootyClubTaskForces[edit]

This is a grouped MfD. See below for list

Consensus has been reached on WikiProject Football multiple times that club specific task forces are not needed, as well as the fact they all appear to be inactive. See discussion 1, disccussion 2, and discussion 3

A previous task force deletion required 3 separate deletions to completely purge it: Real Madrid deletion vote 1, Real Madrid deletion vote 2, Real Madrid deletion vote 3 - not sure if there is an easier way.

These are the ones that have not been deleted yet: there's 10 total: Arsenal, Bayern Munich, Celtic, DC United, Liverpool, Manchester United, San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders, Sheffield United, and Sheffield Wednesday. None of them are active based on their Talk pages.

I have placed the MfD tag with links here on each of those pages. This is my first 'grouped' MfD so I hope I did it correctly.

RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not a member of any of these task forces, but I do not think talk page activity should necessarily be the bar for the use of a task force. For contrast I and many others edit many articles related to the United States and Canada task force, yet there is minimal talk page activity. I also know for a fact that there are a few very active members that are a part of the Sounders task force. I'd like to get an opinion from the most active editors from the respective task force pages nominated here before any additional input. Jay eyem (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick addendum, I actually would be in favor of a procedural keep to evaluate task forces on their individual merits. Some of the task forces are clearly more active than others and bundling them together like this isn't prudent for discussion. I also agree with SmokeyJoe that there are better alternatives to deletion, such as archiving. Jay eyem (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect Without prejudice to perhaps renoming a still-born one individually. Just picking at random Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Liverpool task force clearly has history worth preserving. There's no real value to deleting inactive projects or taskforces anyway. WikiProjects are inward facing by nature so projects and taskforces without participants are nowhere facing and cause no harm. Taskforces don't even contribute to template clutter, which can in any case be dealt with by collapsing. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to expand a bit if the WikiProject doesn't want to use taskforces anymore, file WP:BOTREQ to remove taskforce parameters from all existing template transclusions, modify the template to longer support those parameters and then mark all TF pages as historical. If you really don't like them they can be blanked as well. But absent a good-policy based reason I can't see why talk page discussions should be removed from visible history. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk)
  - In light of SmokeyJoe's comment below I've added the redirect option which could be done for both the main task force pages and their associated talk pages. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are non-trivial histories here. Please explain why archiving or redirection is not sufficient. Note WP:ATD is deletion policy. The wiki way means avoiding deletions without good reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archive. Were used, aren’t wanted going forward, that means archive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The task forces are inactive and most were only active for a short period of time. WP:FOOTY is the logical task force here. Commission a bot to remove these task forces from articles and point to that one, if not already pointing there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FOOTY is the project itself, from which there are additional task forces. How are you determining that the task forces are inactive, out of curiosity? Jay eyem (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no reason why individual clubs need individual task forces. GiantSnowman 07:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: Some clubs have a lot of content that needs attention. The Man Utd task force covers more than 1,500 articles, for example. – Pee Jay 20:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one of the points that I didn't mention was that nation task forces exist already. And these individual clubs are already part of those (ie Bayern part of German foory task force, real Madrid part of Spanish FOOTY task force etc. The nation ones would remain RedPatchBoy (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has been discussed at WT:FOOTY before (will look for links), we don't need task forces for specific teams, task forces for countries is more than sufficient. And can we also delete associated pages to the taskforces too (so we don't need 3 MFDs like the Real Madrid task force deletions)? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has been noted above, the individual clubs are already part of nation task forces, so it's a bit redundant to have a Bayern TF if we already have a German one (and, honestly, I'm also for deleting nation task forces, as I don't think they serve much of a purpose). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think they do still fulfill a role in focussing editing on specialised articles. For example, Matt Smith (footballer, born 2000) might not have got as much coverage just under the England task force, but it did under the Arsenal talk force. Some may be irrelevant and small (Seattle and DC) due to a lack of history and subjects to cover that can be easily adsorbed, but others like Arsenal and Celtic have a lot more to focus on. So I think, at the very least, this one size-fits-all-approach isn't suitable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Amount to focus on doesn't appear to be relevant for example with the Celtic one you referred to, that task force looks like it was created in 2011 and then nothing. It has one article listed in the open section with a start date of 2011 and then nothing. Also, of the five members of that task force, they have a combined edit count of 1 edit since 2016 on wikipedia (on a non-celtic article in 2019 to boot). So, at best Celtic should be deleted for the same reason as the Real Madrid one was. If some of the others ones could be shown to be active, then I could be inclined to saying they could be "grandfathered in" since the past WT:FOOTY consensus said no new ones should be created, but I don't think any of these are active. RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not necessarily about the chat, it's about the work. Arsenal is one that I can say certainly is active by looking at the featured content it is consistantly producing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they seem pretty redundant, are adequately covered by the nation-wide task forces and are mostly inactive anyway. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all A club is to small a scope for a task force and is redundant to larger scope task forces. --SuperJew (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I really don't see the point of these club task forces, but you haven't listed any here. So I don't know what ones we have or exactly how many, what we are deleting. Govvy (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Govvy: I listed them in the third paragraph of the nomination. RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Even if the wider community doesn't see the value in these any more, they're not doing any harm and deleting them doesn't really help anyone. Why don't we just tag them all as inactive in case there's a desire to give them a proper go again? Deletion undoes a lot of work that would take a long time to restore if we ended up changing our minds. – Pee Jay 20:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, and set status to defunct, as well as mark as historical. These task forces have a history even if going forward the wikiproject has decided that they are no longer needed. The decision to no longer make use of these task forces does not mean that the pages must be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I checked the Arsenal task force as a sample held up as among the most likely to be non-trivial, but see for yourself - there's nothing relevant on its talk page, nothing but a list of interested users. There isn't anything to "save" here. If wholescale deletion does not find consensus, redirection would be my second preference - the few actions that did happen would be recorded in the page history, and there'd be an easy history in the unlikely scenario of an interested group of users resurrecting it in the future. As noted before, there's not even enough "interesting" parts to mark historical, these projects seem largely stillborn. SnowFire (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If your sample includes only one task force then you haven't looked very hard. At least at the start, the Manchester United task force was very active, so to assume that no task forces have ever had any activity just because the Arsenal one wasn't is kinda silly. – Pee Jay 15:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above, redundant and generally inactive.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would it be better if we close this and then re-propose each individually to assess each individually, given some of these are not and never were active, while some were more active in the past? I wouldn't propose all 10 as individual ones at once. Maybe two at a time and they could be assessed that way? RedPatch (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While these projects may not be active currently, the activity in these projects will ebb and flow. I appreciate that activity on the talk pages was considered in this proposal, but these projects do more than just provide a conversation place for editors. There are a number of automatic reports and statistics set up in each that are reviewed by the editors on a regular basis without them adding comments. It would be unfortunate to lose these. SkotyWA^T_C 20:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.