Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Flight Simulation

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Flight Simulation

This is a failed/stillborn WikiProject with a (well-intentioned but) flawed scope that intermingles distinct subject matters with different editor groups: flight simulation in real life (tens of articles about flight training, simulation hardware, etc.) and flight simulation in video gaming (hundreds of articles). The project was recently marked "inactive", but in fact it was never active. Since its creation in 2011, the project tagged less than 50 articles, and not one of the threads on its talk page ever received a response. Currently, there are no active participants or subject-matter editors that could revive the project. Of the 7 members, 2 are indef-blocked, 1 stopped editing in 2015, 1 in 2017, 1 in 2018, and 2 in 2019. Combined, they made 1 edit (in May 2019) in the last 12 months and 38 edits in the last 24 months—none of them to a flight simulation-related article. This WikiProject has no content worth merging (e.g., to WikiProject Video games) and no tools, resources, or discussion worth preserving for historical reference. Keeping it would only needlessly clutter talk pages and categories as well as periodically consume maintenance resources.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archive. Save deletion for things that should never have been created. There is no strong reason why someone shouldn't come back and pick up this task. We don't want every worthless harmless page processed by MfD. Consider a smerge and redirect to WP:WikiProject Systems or WP:WikiProject Aviation, or notify both if you really think this needs to be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you see that could be salvaged or merged? From my perspective, for someone to "come back and pick up this task" would take as much work as creating a new WikiProject. I notified WikiProject Aviation (thanks for the suggestion!), but not WikiProject Systems as I did not see the connection. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Flight simulator was tagged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems, and rated "Mid-importance". That's the connection. I'd have notified, except they look inactive. I see archiving more as a general WP:ATD issue, there are so many failed start WikiProjects, and archiving them all is more sensible than feeding them through MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I knew there had to be a reason. :) I do see your point in general, and I certainly would not recommend anyone try to send all stillborn WikiProjects to MfD; however, I think viewing the issue through the lens of "archiving them all" versus "feeding them [all] through MfD" offers a false dichotomy. We can find a balance between the two extremes by considering the merits on a case-by-case basis before initiating a MfD. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archive per the unknown nom and SmokeyJor. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nom, and my argument is for deletion not archiving: "no content worth merging ... and no tools, resources, or discussion worth preserving for historical reference". I suppose I should have just signed the nomination instead of offering a bulleted vote... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value here worth keeping; contributes zero to the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly never active. I would not be opposed to archiving it, but I don't see that it would do any good for future attempts to restart the project. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If "never active" is a WikiProject deletion reason, I believe that should be mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a defined list of WikiProject deletion reasons? I figured it was a matter of judgment on a case-by-case basis as to the usefulness of the project's resources/infrastructure. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's not, but my real issue has been that there is no hard rule for creating a WikiProject, just a recommendation to go through the WikiProject Council process. However, we have not seen much of the old style of many silly new WikiProjects, mainly very thin and within scope of another, and this one is quite old. Archive or delete, I guess it doesn't matter much, but usually I like to ask: Why is archiving not sufficient? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I even hesitate to endorse the creator community's good intentions (as the nom. does) - the majority appear to have been principally gaming enthusiasts, drawing in the professional aspect in a rather uninformed and unprofessional way. If people from WP:WikiProject Systems and/or WP:WikiProject Aviation decide to reactivate the initiative, they are better off recreating a fresh project without the focus on gaming systems and associated project membership. Equally, if the gaming comminity want to resurrect it then a better-named project with a sharper focus and fewer banned members would be more appropriate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:58, 1 June 2020 (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.