Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Vallarta Botanical Gardens

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 for now, without prejudice to another nomination in a couple of months time if concerns aren't addressed. MER-C 11:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Vallarta Botanical Gardens

The focus seems to be too small for a WikiProject. The collaboration seems to have concluded several years ago, and none of it actually took place on the WikiProject pages. Perhaps this could be moved to Bluerasberry's user space. Jc86035 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too narrow a project Legacypac (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035 and Legacypac: Advise me on documentation. I presume that you would not want the memory of this collaboration purged. Do you advise my moving this into Commons or Meta?

The intent was to match image upload with English and Spanish Wikipedia editing. As you noticed, the project is stalled.

There is a next generation project in WP:New York Botanical Garden, which Wikimedia New York City has found easier to access and where there is a Wikipedian on staff participating.

Also, is there any policy or guidelines that anyone would share to determine when to document institutional collaborations on English Wikipedia versus anywhere else? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem the use of the term "WikiProject"? Should this documentation just be moved to WP:Vallarta Botanical Gardens to resolve the issue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making it a part of a larger project is one good option. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening where some related pages are linked. You might also consider placing the discussion at the talkpage of the head article (perhaps as a subpage of the talkpage if there is a lot of date). That might actually help you find interested editors. Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: This project never had the goal of seeking interested editors. The goal was to share images, published naturalist descriptions, and other media into the Wikimedia ecosystem. The people engaging with the content would either find it without seeking this project, or they would be the userbase of researchers and students physically at the garden. This could be a subpage of the WikiProject you mention, but probably the stronger affiliation is with Mexico, libraries in general, or any system for listing organizations seeking to provide media to Wikimedia projects. I can assist with a move but I expect there is no documentation anywhere which establishes consensus about what to do with pages like this. I am not sure that WikiProject Horticulture would want this.

If there is a place to discuss the bigger picture of managing this kind of information then I would join that conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It's just not a good fit for a wikiproject. You could place in userspace and invite specifoc users to help. Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: ~~You could always~~ It might be best to Transwiki to Meta. In reference to the above comment about institutional coordination, a relevant essay you may be interested in reading is m:Not my wiki. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC) Ce 00:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably explain that Meta might be a better fit because the project reaches across to commons and enwiki. That's my take on it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep - A Keep that is not prejudiced against a deletion nomination within 60 days if not improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – To allow Bluerasberry time to decide how this content can be used, rather than them being forced into a decision within six days. Perhaps userfication would be a good move for the time being. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 17 April 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.