MyWiki:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Queen

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. --RL0919 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Queen

Dead project. This project has been inactive since 2008 and had been active in 2009 or 2010, until it went inactive in 2011. JJ98 (Talk) 04:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Discussions are almost entirely circulars. --Kleinzach 04:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.—indopug (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete-- per nom. --E♴(talk) 15:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; completely inactive, nothing worth keeping. And I insist that whoever closes this AFD close it with "another one bites the dust". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Inactive project. MoondogCoronation (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as tagged inactive. Was active, contains records worth keeping archived, and the scope is worthy of revival. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• None of the nomination statements are reasons for deletions. These WikiProject MfDs listed solely on the basis of inactivity are an abuse of process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• While I can't speak for anyone else, my own view is not based "solely on the basis of inactivity". Please see above. I can see differences of opinion and a bit of rhetoric here, but no "abuse of process". --Kleinzach 00:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You appear to consider “almost entirely circulars” to be a reason for deletion? The talk page is “not entirely circulars”, and I consider that to be the start of a reason to keep. I don’t agree that the presence of circulars adds to reasons for deletion.

Looking closely, I consider comments marked with the following timestamps to be worthy of archiving:

• 16:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• 23:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• 23:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC) & continuing thread
• 15:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, the WikiProject page is a substantial piece of work, comprising 290 revisions by 79 authors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's be practical about this. Imagine you are contributing to a Queen-related article, is it seriously going to be worth your while to check through this kind of old ephemera? --Kleinzach 00:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not advocate copying to an article talk page. The reason for an interest in this old ephemera would be because you want to organise a co-ordinated effort to improve a range of articles. If you want to do things alone, WikiProjects are not your thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep We DO NOT DELETE WikiProjects just because they are now inactive. -- Ned Scott 09:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think precedent would disagree with you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 11:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per the extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Queen/Archive. For example:

Content

I added a song infobox to the "Doing All Right" article. I didn't use the Song Infobox template because I wanted to use the same colors as the boxes on the A Night at the Opera song articles. I also added a small box to the "Keep Yourself Alive" article with links to the previous and next songs in the album, so one could browse through all songs from an album without having to return each time to the album article. Please tell me if this looks OK, and if it is, I'll proceed on adding boxes to the other song articles. --Kristbg 15:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You may want to see Wikipedia:Queen for a list of songs and albums. - Mtmtmt 15:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, all song articles have songboxes and album listing infoboxes now. I'm a little unsure if I should add album listing infoboxes for tracks from Live at Wembley '86, Queen on Fire - Live at the Bowl, Return of the Champions, and from the compilations. I think it would end up cluttering the article, especially in songs like "Bohemian Rhapsody", which is present in all of these albums.

I noted that a lot of song articles (particularly those from the earlier albums) don't have a lot of info (actually, aside from the infobox and template, they just say "XXX is a song by Queen, it is the Xth song from the X side of XXX album."). Those articles usually get deleted in no time (I think some were deleted already, actually...)

Some songs from Made In Heaven were a little tricky. "Heaven for Everyone" and "Too Much Love Will Kill You" now have singleboxes, but they don't look so good, since I had to add info from both the solo release and the Queen release...

I guess the priority concerning the song articles right now is to expand the ones which have little info, and to clean up the ones with too much fancruft...

I'll try to work on the album articles and the band members now. --Kristbg 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A merge template was put by another editor on Fight From The Inside and on Sleeping On The Sidewalk. If those articles don't get any more content, they will get merged to the album pages (and, I suspect, more will follow). --Kristbg 02:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And My Melancholy Blues. --Kristbg 21:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting historical commentary about Template:Song infobox would be detrimental. Second, the high activity level of the WikiProject, as noted by SmokeyJoe's comment at 23:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC), indicates that the project may become active again.

Jj98 (talk · contribs) writes that "This project has been inactive since 2008 and had been active in 2009 or 2010, until it went inactive in 2011." Varying activity levels over the years supports the possibility that this WikiProject may be revived, if not in one year, perhaps in three. Keeping this WikiProject will allow future users to reuse the content. Because the benefits of retention outweigh those of deletion, I support keeping this WikiProject. Cunard (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2011 (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.