Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men

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 specifically in the meaning of not deleting the page. Closing/archiving the proposal should not require MfD intervention. RL0919 (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men[edit]

Delete The ink was not dry on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men but for a few hours, when this proposal was restarted, which I think may be evidence of a failure to get the point. Any such resulting WikiProject that would be created would be subject to CSD as a recreation of content deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, but I think this should be nipped in the bud now. WP:DRV is thataway, not restarting the WikiProject all over again. (note: I was a keep !voter in the MfD, but the consensus of that discussion was very clear) UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is ridiculous. Its an open proposal, and such proposals are not routinely deleted. They stay listed until enough people find them and sign up. Most of the deletes on that vote were specifically because this proposal process hadn't completed and that the project had few participants. -- Netoholic @ 06:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Close/archive the proposal: obvious forum shopping. It's a misreading of MfD to assert that it was closed as delete because "most of the deletes" were about a lack of proposal or participants. As the closer said, concerns also included: "violates WP:POINT and/or WP:NPOV, plus concerns about the clarity of the scope, the redundancy to existing projects (chiefly WP:MEN), the risk of it becoming a POV battleground". — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal was restarted after the MfD of the pilot project page, and the reworded Scope section of this proposal specifically addressed the scope concerns raised in the MfD. The forum shopping is really this new MfD which seeks to salt the earth and preclude any chance that WikiProject to cover this neglected topic area can ever proceed. How can it be claimed that Wikipedia has a systemic bias favoring men, when there are 17 WikiProjects devoted to women's interests, when men are restricted to a single WikiProject which is defined as covering the men's rights activism area? I am not a men's right activist. I only want to see articles related to men's interests improved to better quality. There is a difference. Its disgusting and sexist, and against the basic principles of Wikipedia to disallow a subset of editors from gathering in good faith to work toward article improvement. -- Netoholic @ 10:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be claimed that Wikipedia has a systemic bias favoring men, when there are 17 WikiProjects devoted to women's interests — This is a non sequitur that beggars belief. Let's take something uncontroversial: the English Wikipedia has a bias favouring articles about people in countries which have English as an official language. (Not necessarily a bad thing but it's obviously a bias that exists.) Now note that we have a Ethiopian WikiProject, a Chinese WikiProject and a Mexican WikiProject—in fact the number of WikiProjects we have from countries who don't have English as an official language greatly outweighs the ones who do have it as an official language. Yet the systemic bias works the other way, and in fact we can say that the very point of these WikiProjects is to provide minority topics with a shared space for discussion and collaboration. That's the answer to "How can it be claimed ..." As for the claims that people are disallow[ing] a subset of editors from gathering in good faith to work toward article improvement, of course that's untrue, and lots of people have repeatedly pointed out relevant WikiProjects such as WikiProject Gender Studies. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 11:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if you were to apply this line of thought fairly and to it's logical conclusion, you'd focus on proposing closure of some of those 17 WikiProjects instead. --Netoholic @ 12:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I first attempted to close the proposal (diff), and my closing was reverted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The real question is why you attempted to "close" literally the most recent proposal listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals when closure is not even a standard part of that process, and even projects that never developed there remain listed indefinitely. --Netoholic @ 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you must know, I started at the top of the list; it was one where I knew the result from having participated in the MfD. I also closed Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Referees and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/ویکی منصوبہ اردو کمپیوٹر سائنس; do you have problems with those closures too? Though there is a backlog that you are welcome to help clear, closure is very standard, which is why there are over 400 closed proposals in Category:Archived WikiProject proposals UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"do you have problems with those closures too?" - yes, of course I disagree with that because I am consistent... and since you only did those today and not "closed" any in the past, it makes it seems like you only did those to make it look like your delisting and closure of this one wasn't a deliberately targeted action. --Netoholic @ 13:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It only makes it seem that way if one is unable to assume good faith on my part. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Citing AGF isn't an answer and just citing it doesn't mean you acted in good faith. If AGF was on your mind, you'd have asked me about this proposal on my talk page first. --Netoholic @ 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you should have come to my talk page (or the proposal's talk page) when reverting my closure. Also, following the instructions and creating it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men (2nd nomination) would have made clearer the intentions you now assert. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You're the one doing actions far out of process here. In addition to these "closures", I could point out that you unnecessarily moved template /doc and /class pages to under a totally different template and didn't bother setting up either of them properly. More salting the earth to make more work for others if or when this proposal develops. --Netoholic @ 14:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it normal process to have Category:Men articles by importance and Category:Men articles by quality, along with all of their subcats, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men set up when the project is still in the proposal stage? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the example of Wikipedia:WikiProject Referees, yep... not unusual at all to do that. Seems like many project proposers create a proposal, project page, and category structure at about the same time. Council is an optional process, after all. --Netoholic @ 14:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Referees set up their cats (diff) at the same time as their project (diff). Do you have a different example? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"still in the proposal stage" was what you said. --Netoholic @ 14:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This smells of dead fish both ways. When the earlier MFD nomination was made three weeks ago, I said that I would wait to !vote to see whether the proponent or the MFD nominator was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I then !voted to Delete because I concluded that both sides were acting in good faith, but the proponent was making a good-faith mistake that would disrupt Wikipedia. The proposal was then deleted, and the closer noted multiple reasons for their deletion. The proponent is now re-opening what appears to be essentially the same proposal with what amounts to a hand wave to say that the issues identified in the earlier MFD have been resolved, but the hand wave fundamentally misreads the close, which identified multiple reasons, and did not say "Come back in a few weeks with a better proposal". So at this point the proponent is, if not being disruptive to make a point, simply being disruptive by being tendentious. On the other hand, this is a proposal, and it isn't necessary for the nominator to try to shoot down a misguided trial balloon immediately, and this warning shot at the misguided trial balloon is also disruptive. If the proponent really wants a further reasoned discussion, they should withdraw this misguided proposal and go to Deletion Review. If the nominator really wants to minimize disruption, they should withdraw this MFD and just ignore the proposal. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The logical first step to addressing that MfDs concerns is to identify interested participants. I can't go to DRV without first showing I am not alone in wanting the WikiProject to form. This is a sign up page and discussion page to define the scope - that's what it's for. --Netoholic @ 13:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: from what I can see, the MfD was closed correctly, so DRV isn't of any use. As I understand it, if you want to work on a WikiProject proposal which isn't quite there, the WikiProject Council is the place to do it. Deleting this would be a bit like deleting an AFC submission because of questionable notability. The draftspace is for stuff of questionable notability which require work, in the same way the WikiProject Council is the place for WikiProject proposals that are work-in-progress. ~~For what it's worth I was uninvolved in the original MfD and am indifferent regarding the proposal in its current form.~~ SITH (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've put my two cents on the actual issue at hand in here. The TL;DR version is I think WikiProjects based on identitarian activism should be merged with their counterparts and named after the particular category of identity to which the activism pertains. My !vote on the deletion here stays the same, although I have struck the statement about my uninvolvement on the issue for the closer's assistance. SITH (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The proposal is going nowhere, no matter how much the goals/scope are wordsmithed. A WikiProject is a collaboration among a group of editors. It's exceedingly clear at this point that there is not a group of editors out there who want to work on this – it's just one editor, and you can't make a WikiProject with just one editor. – Levivich 14:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore close. Delete is unnecessary here. The proposal is harmless after it's closed with a note not to propose it again pending some change of massive events. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Close. I don't mind which, but it's very clear that this not a collaboration between editors, just one editor wanting to call himself a WikiProject. There's a serious WP:IDHT issue here, and it's time for Netoholic to stop WP:FORUMSHOPping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 21 June 2019 (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.