Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiProject:Community

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was this page was deleted at 00:56, 1 July 2005 by Stevertigo. A new version was then recreated by at 00:57, 1 July 2005 by BlankVerse. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 4 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates

The Wikiproject is empty and unused, and contain very little but Template:WikiProject, which isn't even subst'ed and filled in. Radiant_* 12:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• (the other one I mentioned turned out to be a template ?! and has been taken to TFD) Radiant_* 12:34, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• The template mentioned is used to quickly create the backbone of a project page. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose. Delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates unless someone can prove me wrong. Mgm|^(talk) 17:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep. Significantly expanded. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with MacGyverMagic. Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates seems to be useless and redundant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• This is under a month old -- is it a dead duck, or is the author simply doing finals and too busy to expand it at the moment ? --Simon Cursitor 07:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Some sort of organization to the work on Wikipedia templates is desperately needed, even if this WikiProject currently appears dead. BlankVerse ∅ 1 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
• Keep. This project is less than a week old according to the history, but Radiant!'s note on the Talk page is from May 11, far older than the project itself, so I'm quite confused as to what's going on. Nonetheless, if that date discrepancy is just a glitch, then it skirts the boundaries of bad faith to nominate this for deletion at this point. The question crosses my mind whether there is a conflict of interest here with respect to Wikipedia:Template standardisation. Courtland July 4, 2005 18:57 (UTC)
  • Er, what exactly are you accusing me of? Why would there be a conflict between two groups of people improving templates? Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 20:58 (UTC)
    • I'm accusing you of a bad faith nomination. If the VFD is withdrawn at this point, that would indicate your good faith, because as you pointed out the new project is very different from the old one. Also, "why would there be conflict between two groups of people improving templates" .. come on, Radiant! give me a break. The remits are the same by and large (not identical but undoubtedly overlapping); as both of you know of the standardisation page and I can only assume that the WikiProject was "re"created and perhaps in the first place created as a formalization of the stnadaridisation work and your nominating for deletion indicates that you want nothing of WikiProject involved. So, demonstrate your good faith and withdraw the nomination. Courtland July 4, 2005 21:38 (UTC)

  Something is VERY weird in the article history. I know that it was created in February or March of 2005, by User:Stevertigo. BlankVerse ∅ 4 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)

  • Okay, here's what's going on... it was created on May 2nd by Stevertigo. On May 11th I asked on the talk page what it was about. Then on May 18th I nominated it for deletion (since I had gotten no answer from the note). Then on July 1st, Stevertigo deleted the project, possibly as a result of this VFD. Then on July 1st, Blankverse created an entirely new project, which, needless to say, is very different from the old one. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 20:58 (UTC)
    • My guess is that I was editing the page at the same time that Stevertigo deleted the page, so when I thought that I was just saving my edits, I was actually creating a new version of the same article. Now the only thing that I wonder about is how this VFD fell through the cracks and the page never got deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 4 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)
      • The reason that it fell through the cracks was that a formatting error on the May 18th VFD log page made it appear that every VFD article for that day was closed, when in fact that was not the case. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 4 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.