Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concordia

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 mark historical, delete subpages (see below). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RESULTS:

1. Wikipedia:Concordia/Help desk, Deleted.
2. Wikipedia:Concordia/Newsletter, Deleted.
3. Wikipedia:Concordia/Frequently Asked Questions, MERGED to Parent.
4. Wikipedia:Concordia/Proposals, MERGED to Parent Talk.
5. Wikipedia:Concordia/IRC Rules, MEREGD to Wikipedia:IRC channels
6. Wikipedia:Concordia/Templates and images, MERGED to Parent Talk.
7. WP:CCD and WP:CONCORD, Deleted.
8. Wikipedia:Concordia, marked {{historical}}
9. Template:User Concordia, DELETE.
10. Category:Wikipedians in Concordia, DELETE

[edit] Wikipedia:Concordia

NOTE: FIRST NOMINATION is now located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concordia(2nd nom)

I first nominated Concordia way back in November 2006, which I withdrew because I hadn’t tried to engage with its members. It was tagged historical shortly afterwards, but with Esperanza’s demise, was resurrected; thus I don’t think tagging as historical is an option any more. As a question I asked on the talk page has now gone unanswered for over a month I think I have given enough time for Concordians to get their act together.

Concordia has been beleaguered with problems from its very start with what its aim and role is on the Wikipedia. The very first poster to Concordia’s talk page made this point:

This project seems completely free of any actual plans. I can't add more to a project that is functionally vacuous. It seems absurd to have elections and publicity before you even decide on any sort of preliminary policy. And no, "reminding people to be good wikicitizens" is not policy, since it doesn't require or utilize any group effort.

Concordia never seems to have got past this stage. They built all the accoutrements and gewgaws of a project, but it never got off the ground. If you read the talk archives, it’s full of threads trying to think of some ideas to promote civility. They also spent more time explaining to people why they weren’t Esperanza than they did promoting civility. The one idea they had, a civility notice board, was promptly MfDed; as I noted on my previous nom, Concordia never seemed to get over this blow. I actually have personal experience of this, as I was briefly a member from August to September – when my every post was ignored or met with sheer misery, I eventually gave up on it. All attempts by new members, old members or me to get a clearer idea of where Concordia is going has been met with bitterness or resounding silence.

Ultimately, Concordia faces the huge problem that they have a great idea but absolutely no way of implementing it. Encouraging people to be civil to one another is a noble ideal, but you simply cannot do that through an image of a cup of tea and a notice board. Their latest idea is the help desk (which seems to be another notice board under a different name) – which no-one has used and my enquiry as to its purpose has been ignored for over a month. Concordia’s history consists of stumbling from one disaster to another – There’s nothing here, and it’s misleading to list it as a community organisation. Delete it, and have a nice cup of tea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts of historifying: IMO, this is a stupid idea. Whatever one may say about Esperanza, it did at least leave a large impact in Wikipedia, for good or ill. One can not say the same for Concordia. There will be nothing to write in an "essay" - they have managed nothing in the time that they have been active that has not subsequently be deleted. And, as I have pointed out above, whenever someone tagged historical, someone else takes it off again in a matter of days, but still doesn't activate the organisation. Instead it sails on, stately as a galleon and twice as obselete. It's listed on our community portal as an active organisation when no-one has touched it for a month. Please seriously consider what you mean by voting to historify - there's nothing to historify. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if only to prove that anarchy still reigns over democracy on wikipedia... (ironically this is a vote of course :) ) Ansell 11:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, although I would also be content with some form of Messedrocker solution as was done with Esperanza. As far as I can tell, this is pretty much another Esperanza, an organisation created with the best will in the world but which seems to be more focused on generating bureaucracy in the form of yet more message boards, proposal pages and of course the obligatory logos, userboxes and categories, than actually helping the encyclopaedia.

The goal of generating civility itself is obviously laudable, but a bureaucracy for it is not needed. Only two things are needed to promote civility:

1. Be civil.
2. If someone isn't being civil, remind them that if they aren't civil, they will be unable to work with other users, and if they're unable to work with other users, they won't be working at all.

We have WP:CIVIL; we expect people to follow it; we don't need to go around promoting it as if it was special. Some people will probably argue that Concordia is 'harmless' and should be left alone, but leaving excessive bureaucracy unpruned is not harmless, because it encourages people to create more bureaucracy. Concordia itself is a pretty clear example of this - I really doubt that it would have been created if Esperanza hadn't been going at the same time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I may in fact be wrong about people coming to this MfD to claim that Concordia is harmless - the project seems so aimless and teetering on the brink of inactivity, that I'm not sure there will be much self-defense. (For all its faults, inactivity and aimlessness weren't accusations you could level at Esperanza.) I can't draw any other conclusion from a project aimed at promoting civility which last month, after some discussion, created a help desk which says "Concordia does not fight incivility". Qué? Unsurprisingly it's completely unused. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it has gone into inactivity, despite the fact it was said that if it did it should be sent back to MfD. I think it's inappropiate of me to vote so abstain. Computerjoe's talk 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, or failing that, deprecate as per Esperanza. It is essentially the same, and doesn't work for essentially the same reasons. >Radiant< 16:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep!! What are we trying to do here, take away everything which is not actually editing articles, I personally think the deletion of Esperanza seemed wrong but if this is deleted its just going ot create a bad atmosphere among editors, with respect to voters of delete and the nominator, deleting this would be one of the most annoying deletions wikipedia has ever done, even though I am not a member of it I still think its definitely one to keepTellyaddict 16:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe the nominator provided enough evidence this doesn't "improve atmosphere" in Wikipedia. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/Archive as historic. If you wish to gain a vote to make this historic, then I would agree. I do not think there is much that will be gained by deleting this project. It did have a valid aim (civility), and so if someone wanted to start it up in a years time, I don't see why that would be an issue either. Either way, I don't think it should be deleted. Ian¹³/t 18:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how Concordia contributed in any way to Wikipedia's history. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In your view as its biggest failure? Computerjoe's talk 15:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

IMV Wikipedia's biggest failure is driving away its most competent editors by giving too much air time to psychos with a grudge against them. Concordia barely registers on the radar. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I am wondering why, out of 167 members of Category:Wikipedians in Concordia, so few have responded so far. - jc37 19:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - After the recent discussions about Esperanza, Concordia had a "shakeup" of membership, and is just starting to re-align. Deleting a project that's trying to re-organise while they are attempting to do so seems more than a little unfair. - jc37 19:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just starting to realign? They have been "realigning" since November. The talkpage has had no posts for over a month, everything lies dead, and even the founder above admits the organisation is totally inactive. They've had four months to "realign" and it's got nowhere. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Don't delete things with any sort of history like this. It would be very annoying for a new user to come, and see scattered links to Concordia, without having any idea what it was. No opinion on the actual problem. -Amarkov moo! 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Mark historical, for the same reasons as those used at WP:MFD/EA. --tjstrf talk 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Esperanza-ise per Amarkov. Awyong J. M. Salleh 07:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Esperanza-ise per User:Amarkov, mark historical per User: tjstrf.
• Esperanza-ise, the page of CCD should be left for historic purposes with a page of Concordia's history. Well, its aim was civility, and do not see why this page should be totally deleted. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 14:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Esperanza-ise per above. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 15:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I thought that the term was "Esperanzafy." Sounds more catchy, anyway. Gracenotes^T § 22:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be "¡esperanzificen!", which would be the formal plural imperative of "esperanzificar". Uncle G 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree with deletion The friendly cup-of-tea symbol was one of the first things I noticed when I joined Wikipedia, and thinking of it reminds me to be kind and courteous in all my dealings here, just like my Christian faith does in real life. Nimman 00:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Concordia is an organization devoted strictly to civility, and shouldn't be deleted simply because it's thought to be dead. Of course, time has passed, and nothing has happened, but I must agree with Nimman. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above, and the fact that this organization is here simply to promote civility, that doesn't mean it's gotta be active. What's it hurting? VD64992 06:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm a former Esperanzian. Even if I had never found Esperanza, I'd still be civil. I'm still civil after Esperanza's deletion. In my opinion, civility doesn't need an organisation to spread it. I like the Kindness Campaign because it's loosely organised. Bureaucracy leads to incivility, I think. ~Crazytales (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It serves no purpose in the WP community. --Osbus 01:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Or shut down, whichever. But this did nothing and is fundamentally useless. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It harmed Wikipedia - much like Esperanza did - by suggesting you had to be part of a special structured over-bureaucratised group in order to be civil, friendly and helpful. Neil (not Proto ►) 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dev920: no evidence that the project has served any purpose, no evidence that there has been any progress in "reorganizing" that actually serves any purpose, and apparently nothing substantial to save with a "historical" indicator that would be useful. If the "keep" voters had given as much focused effort to this Wikiproject as they gave to a sentence or two of comment, then I would have taken a different position. Look, if it helps, just print a picture of a cup of tea and tape it to your monitor, and (briefly exiting civil mode) stop the emptyheaded blithering of meaningless niceties and do some actual research and make some cited contributions of documented facts. I can easily imagine a community that fills terabytes of server space with talk about pleasantries but makes absolutely no progress toward producing an informative and thorough encyclopedia. Barno 14:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Esperanza-ise per above. It may have little use, but let it act as a lesson to others in the future that an organisation like this can have both good and bad points - • The Giant Puffin • 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or archive for history. As per disbandment of Esperanza. This organization seems little different, and separate groups do not belong on Wikipedia. Civility is just a branch of the Kindness Campaign, and so this group serves little purpose, except for giving "membership" status, just as Esperanza.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 21:28, 6 March 2007 (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.