Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Lake Macquarie

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was keep but tag as inactive for now (obviously, with no objection to removing that tag if it once again becoems active). (Radiant) 10:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lake Macquarie

The project has lain dormant for what seems well over a year; nothing ever eventuated past starting up the WikiProject, and there appears to be only one active member. Although if there were a few editors willing to pursue Newcastle and Lake Macquarie articles, this could stay, at present there's no reason for this to stay as it's not being used. Delete or at least merge to WikiProject Australia. JROBBO 23:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. JROBBO 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
There is already Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney and Wikipedia:WikiProject Outback New South Wales. Possibly see if any editors are interested in expanding scope of this project to include anything in between (Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Central Coast, Wollongong) and call it WikiProject Regional New South Wales? -- Chuq 00:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if Wikipedia:WikiProject Outback New South Wales is alive either, although some editors contribute to things that could be classified as part of it (without necessary being aware of its existence). City of Newcastle, City of Cessnock, City of Maitland and City of Lake Macquarie are a bit of a black hole (in relation to suburb pages in particular). I guess moribund project pages should be deleted.--Grahamec 01:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The outback is not everything outside Sydney. Please read the article on that topic. You could perhaps define it as everything outside of the densely populated coastal fringes, but of course Newcastle and Lake Macquarie are in those fringes. -- Tim Starling 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful page for any editor who wishes to work on Lake Macquarie articles. I might start taking up the slack myself, as I am a former resident of the area. Raffles mk 02:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not being used and will become out of date soon enough... JROBBO 06:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the policies are or what normal practice here is. The suburb list is definitely needed though. If that was to be merged to City of Lake Macquarie and the project deleted I would not have a problem with that, but IMO having long lists of redlinks in LGA articles looks messy. Raffles mk 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - both listed members of the project have been notified of this discussion. Badbilltucker 20:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question, is it possible to just mark the project inactive and leave it at that? If people want to come back to it in the future to revive it, it'll mean that they don't have to start from scratch. Lankiveil 10:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment as above, it doesn't seem to be doing any harm, why not just tag it inactive and point a link at the active projects covering the same territory? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, tag it as inactive (in other words, Keep). Guettarda 06:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes it's inactive, but I don't see the point in deleting it just for that reason. Was the proposer bored? I can think of better ways to fill in my time than looking for WikiProjects to delete. Perhaps some day it will become active, when more contributors from Lake Macquarie join Wikipedia. -- Tim Starling 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being inactive is no sufficient reason to delete. Tag it as in active so people who are interested can revive it should it need to be. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tag as inactive. I've seen activity on the Lake Macquarie (i.e. Gosford/Wyong region of NSW) articles recently, if someone wants to revive it, a few edit histories and talk page notifications wouldn't hurt. Orderinchaos78 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag as inactive on the basis of the suburb list. If, however, one of the other projects dealing with the area were to try to take on the suburb list, or create a task force dealing with Lake Mac, then the page would be redundant. Badbilltucker 14:30, 5 December 2006 (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.