MyWiki:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject MTSU
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 no consensus - many voices, all pulling in different directions, and no terribly compelling rationales behind any of them. Since a Wikiproject is just a voluntary collection of editors, a local consensus could still merge or taskforce-ify, if so inclined. In an inactive Wikiproject, such a consensus would probably be easy to assemble (but why bother?) WilyD 05:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Recommend deletion. This project never really took off. The project page is basically just a shell of a WikiProject Under development. Only 17 articles currently associated to the banner. If kept then we should include it as a supported project of WikiProject Tennessee or United States. Kumioko (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities ..FYI many projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas Tech University that all could go to WikiProject Universities.Moxy (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Texas Tech is currently supported by WikiProject Texas and WikiProject United States mostly but it would be great if WP Universities wanted to help out too. Unfortunately it looks like Universities is suffering from the same low editor participation as most other projects on WP. Even Milhist is struggling at the moment. Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly being supported by WP Texas and/or WP United States has not helped at all. Where on the other hand if WP Universities (that currently has 5 GA nomination in progress including Texas State University–San Marcos) was made aware of this topic - things may get up and ruining for the main MTSU page and its sub pages. Dont think WP Universities even knows about this project as seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities#Related WikiProjects.Moxy (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Texas Tech is currently supported by WikiProject Texas and WikiProject United States mostly but it would be great if WP Universities wanted to help out too. Unfortunately it looks like Universities is suffering from the same low editor participation as most other projects on WP. Even Milhist is struggling at the moment. Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Task force-ify it. The project might be more appropriate as a task force than a full WikiProject.--SGCM (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing worth keeping here. This has failed as a project, so unfortunately it will also fail as a task force. In the present situation WP needs contributors not deckchair rearrangers. --Kleinzach 00:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that Wikipedidia needs less armchair naysayers and more contributors. However, in my humble opinion, this type of discussion and inevitable deletion of someone else's active contributions is exactly what drives active contributors from Wikipedia - if they don't leave they have to spend too much effort trying to keep their creations from being deleted. Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion What is the point of removing inactive wiki-projects? Why remove material that someone put a lot of work and thought into? By the way I have just added about a dozen articles to this Wikiproject including Al Gore and his dad. There are a lot more articles which can be added. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- We want to encourage people to contribute to active projects, not direct them to ones that have already failed. --Kleinzach 06:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree we want people to know if a project is inactive so they don't have false hopes when they try to participate and get no response. However in the case of this WikiProject it is already very prominently marked as INACTIVE - so why delete it instead of putting thought into how it can be revived? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- 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.