Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League

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: Keep, marked inactive. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League[edit]

Delete. Inactive project that adds no value at all. Everything within its scope is covered by WP:CRIC which is far better equipped to expand coverage of ALL Bangladeshi cricket and not just this one small part of it. As far as I can see, the only editor who has contributed anything to this "project" during the last year or more has been blocked, so who is going to take it forward now? It obviously started as a fad, against sound advice, when the BPL was new. It is a total waste of space. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 15:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Bangladesh cricket task force which is the medium for ALL Bangladeshi cricket and renders this inactive mini-project superfluous as well as pointless. All articles about the BPL (and there aren't many!) are managed by the task force, the existence of which considerably strengthens the case for deletion of the project. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This tournament doesn't need its own Wikiproject. Joseph2302 08:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep: I would like to discuss about something.

Firstly, Jack suggests that Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Bangladesh cricket task force is medium for all Bangladeshi cricket and the existence of this considerably strengthens the case for deletion of the project. My question is, is that one active? Has 5 members, one of them has signed just yesterday! 2 has no contribution to the TF, one as well as the creator is blocked! Also the last contribution to this project was far back at July! (avoiding the yesterday contribution) So I actually can't find a very good idea about how this TF is gonna help BD cricket related article and BPL! As far as I can see, the only editor who has contributed anything to this "task force" during the last few months or more has been blocked, so who is going to take it forward now?
Secondly I agree that everything withing it is covered by WP cricket! But what improvement was going under it? WP:BPL was created at 2013. Till then 2 seasons of BPL were completed! Only basic articles were created until then. But after the creation of this project editors went to improve BPL related article! In Fact the under a campaign of this project the only FL of this project (one out of two about BD cricket) were created! So if you measure the success of this project I think you'll find out this project is no pointless and has lot importance for the BPL related articles.
Thirdly there is a question who is going to take this project forward? There are 20 members are in this project and at least 5 of them are active in bnwikipedia and they contribute here as well but not on a regular basis. In addition to it 2-3 users are there who are active in English Wiki too! So this project won't run out of members. Also I need to add, this is a WikiProject not a userproject or one person project. So just a blocked user were contributing doesn't mean it is a one man show! Also I may mention that the current vice coordinator is active at Wikipedia! and he has the experience of managing WP:IPL. But yeah one thing to agree that this project is currently an inactive one.
Now here where my main point is, there are many wikiprojects in WP but they have the inactive tag and those can be revived! This wikiproject is an inactive one. But not completely. With BPL 4 going on, the project can be activated! Also the guidelines state that a project can be taken to MFD in rare case where the project is completely inactive and has no residual purpose! I think WP:BPL surpasses those! Cause it's not completely inactive. Because BPL related works are still going on and a person will get a reply in the project talk page if s/he posts something! So after all these logics I propose adding an inactive tag rather than deleting this project! Thanks in advance! --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 17:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Points to be made. The task force is part of WP:CRIC and, as such, everyone in CRIC is a de facto member of it. I have not put my userid to the task force but I have nevertheless updated Bangladesh cricket articles recently as part of my CRIC activities. I am not a listed member of the women's cricket task force either, but I still work on women's cricket articles occasionally. If I was so inclined, I could create an 18th century cricket task force because that is my main area of interest but I would still be operating within CRIC. Your project is effectively independent of CRIC and yet still completely reliant upon CRIC to develop its articles. A project about a niche subject like the BPL is superfluous, inappropriate and seriously limited in scope. I strongly recommend that you join the task force and work for the betterment of all Bangladeshi cricket articles, not just one secondary competition that has in any case a very doubtful potential. The future of Bangladesh cricket is in Test, LOI, T20I and your two first-class domestic competitions. After all, you've just beaten England! Work on your Test players and your first-class teams. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pratyya Ghosh has summed it up and I would like to say that Bangladesh Premier League is an ongoing event, currently season 4 is running as mentioned by him. This WikiProject helps viewers to get updated with the information regarding the tournament. I agree that this is an inactive project. But a inactive tag should be added instead of deleting and in need, it could be activated again. Hammer67 (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lugnuts, Joseph2302. Guys, pinged you both so that you are aware of this. How convenient that an IP with just this one edit appears out of nowhere and finds their way straight to an obscure discussion page like this one. Would it be too much to ask that the IP signs in with an existing userid and identifies himself? Otherwise, the above entry is extremely suspicious. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the IP editor, but Pratyya Ghosh who has been pretty much inactive for five/six months, until this MfD was raised. I don't see how this taskforce/project makes users all jump up and make an active effort to improve articles in its scope. If they're that concerned/interested in helping, they wouldn't need to have a sub-project from the main cricket one to do that. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this. I haven't checked that I wasn't logged in. I usually don't edit much in Wikipedia so this happened. Sometimes I watch matches of BPL. While checking information regarding scores in the main article, I came to this. I thought I should comment my opinion here. Hammer67 (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - anyone editing a BPL article is logically a part pf this project, which does little harm and is actually rather more active than many others. It doesn't do any real harm to keep it - franchise leagues present a different set of issues than actual leagues do. Given the poor quality of many of the articles associated with the league it makes sense to have a place to discuss issues directly which might attract the attention of Bangladeshi editors more obviously than wading through the sort of stuff that gets dealt with at WP:CRIC here discussions can quickly get swamped. For example, the issue with the defunct franchises redirecting to the active ones when, in reality, they are different entities has had some discussion at the wiki project recently and, if I can ever be arsed and get any form of encouragement at all to start editing BPL articles again, I might get around to sorting out at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, I usually edit in Bangladeshi related articles. Of course, the project's activity is less past months. This is because the tournament is a yearly event that held for a month at most. For that reason, most of the edit / activity are happened during or after the event only. But that should not be the reason for deletion of this project. If franchise cricket league can be covered by WP:CRIC, then wiki does not need WP:IPL, WP:PSL those Wikiprojects!!! Only one or two members are blocked. The project will go forward may be not as fast as expected, but will carry on. Another thing is according to this, it should be meet the guidelines for being marked as defunct. The defunct guidelines are Template:WikiProject status/doc#Usage: Defunct projects, where #3 apply here, it may be not as much as active, but consider the likelihood the project may be revived in future. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 'There aren't many article or there aren't many editors' which necessarily doesn't mean that there won't. New editors can surely come and enhance articles related to BPL. Wikiproject on this topic will surely encourage them to do so. I agree with Pratyya and propose to add inactive tag instead of deleting. Thanks - ANKAN GHOSH DASTIDER (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufe (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Blue Square Thing and Ibrahim Husain Meraj say. Afifa Afrin (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2016 (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.