Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Good Article Collaboration Center

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 and tag as defunct - the WikiProject Council Guide suggests either {{inactive}} or {{defunct}} are the current choices, the latter being the WikiProject version of what {{historical}} is for policies and discussion seems to be noting that; however, tags can be easily changed so this isn't really a big deal. I'm tagging it with {{defunct}} and if guidance for tagging WikiProjects evolves, tags can be replaced.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Good Article Collaboration Center[edit]

Dead project, has only 34 members. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Two things came to mind as I looked through this. First, through what moronic stretch of the mind did 34 contributors become too few? Shall we delete this project because it has only 39? Shall we delete this project because it only has 20? I didn't think so. Regardless of all of that, this WikiProject seems to be a good idea; what is the harm in leaving it tagged with {{inactive}} or {{historical}}? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the project's extensive talk page. Graham87 04:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to suitable target (if identified). 2008-2009 project with minimal project page and about four screenfuls of discussion, lasting less than a year. Pace Hi878, this demonstrates just how little 34 editors can achieve on occasions. Basically a silly metapedian idea — good articles cannot be created by editors in this way. Good articles are created by editors with special interests, backed up by technical editing advice (MoS guidelines etc.). --Klein zach 09:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark inactive - maybe redirect to GA talk page or something. Historical evidence of how editors tried collaborating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark as historical -Deleting a project only makes it not visible to normal readers (non-admins) - thus does not save any space on Wiki as all pages are retained for historical reference purposes they just may not all be seen by the public.

We have the tags/banners Template:Historical and Template:Dormant so that old projects that did some work can still been seen by our readers - thus the projects will not be made again by mistake and or it could (but not likely) be revived.

We have the tags/banners Template:Defunct and Template:Mothballed so that we dont delete this fail projects that never got of the ground - because we want our editors to see why this projects were not viable (no members - not a broad topic etc..) - again may prevent a new project with a similar topic from being made.

We are free to post links on the failed projects to other projects that cover this topics - thus redirecting wanted editors to the proper projects that are still alive.Moxy (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation. Template:Dormant and Template:Mothballed are not used for projects. See documentation. --Klein zach 02:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just never get it do you - those types of tags are used by projects for there failed proposal pages and old guidelines etc. This is what projects do they make guidelines and proposals besides article development. Moxy (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag historical/inactive. 34 members is actually quite a lot for an inactive project and there is significant discussion on the talk page. Deletion would serve no useful purpose. Hut 8.5 17:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mark as inactive or historical. As Hut said, deletion would serve no useful purpose. MJ94 (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slap User:Jj98 for the extremely poor nomination rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A trout slap for saying "Dead project"? Or for using "only' instead of a more appropriate word? If you start awarding trouts for mis-phrasing you are going to be very busy around here. Maybe try some nominations yourself, SmokeyJoe? --Klein zach 02:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A trout slap for not giving a rationale for deletion. Perhaps "dead" implied some deeper meaning beyond "inactive", but I don't think so, and he has yet again ignored the instructions at the top of the page. A trout slap for offering 34 members as a reason for deletion. While, as you have elsewhere noted, he has nominated pages that had good reasons to be deleted, he fails, despite requests in multiple places, to provide a more informative rationale. I'm afraid that his track record suggests that he does not discern his nomination choices well, and in the absence of a persuasive rationale for any of them (even when readily apparent to reviewers), well, what are we supposed to do? Was the nomination here something that you would put your name to? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The project died in 2009, so yes, it was a reasonable nomination. I agree the nom's explanation was too short, but why single out JJ98 for criticism? It smacks of bullying. --Klein zach 13:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Inactive" is not a reason for deleting wikiprojects. Both the guidelines at the top of this page and the Wikiproject Council recommend that inactive wikiprojects should be tagged as inactive rather than deleted, unless the project never produced any content at all (not the case here, but even if it was the nomination would have to specify that). There is no identifiable benefit for the project from deleting this page, and nobody has even tried to outline one here. That's why the nomination is inadequate. Hut 8.5 14:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been repeated ad nauseum by those who share your opinion, and your interpretation of the guidelines at the top of this page. The short answer is that the English words 'inactive' and 'dead' have radically different meanings. --Klein zach 05:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A project is inactive if it is not currently active. A project is dead if it will never be active in the future. Therefore by definition "dead wikiprojects" is a subset of "inactive wikiprojects", and any guidelines concerning the treatment of inactive wikiprojects (such as this one) apply equally to dead wikiprojects.

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that we can tell this project is truly dead and will never return to activity in the future. So what? We don't delete "dead" policy proposals, "dead" requests for comment, or "dead" discussions or project-space pages of any kind unless there is some compelling reason why their existence is harmful. Why should "dead" wikiprojects be any different? Hut 8.5 12:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if that's your opinion, but this thread is really about bullying. --Klein zach 07:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just my opinion, it's what the relevant guideline says. It is a basic requirement of anyone who nominates a page for deletion to give a reason why the page should be deleted. Neither you nor the nominator has done this, and when asked to do so all you've done is avoid the issue. Hut 8.5 19:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At some point he must realizes hes on the wrong side of the fence! Why does he not comply with the normal order of things. This playing dumb is getting tiresome - how old are you 2 ?Moxy (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the {{historical}} tag: The correct tag is {{defunct}}, not {{historical}}, for WikiProjects. If you check you will see the {{defunct}} text starts "This project . . ." whereas {{historical}} starts "This page . . ." (see the discussion here). Thank you. --Klein zach 05:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually finally agree with you about this tgas - However thats not what the community has been doing since 2007 with this tags -And a final note to this two editors that refuse to follow our procedures - Failed concepts/projects should be documented, not erased - as they are with proposals. People will recreate them (or ones similar) if they are unaware of the prior attempts and failures. Not sure why this concept is so hard for the two of you to understand - its why we have the guidelines and this tags and directory that keeps track. The directory keeps a record of this so they dont get made again and/or they made be revitalizes. But this has not been working because projects keep getting deleted, thus people may remake this projects because the directory is void of a specific type project. Just look at all this time wasted having to deal with this - its nuts.Moxy (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the defunct tag as mentioned. --LAA Fan 16:35, 13 July 2011 (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.