Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Radiant_>|< 16:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit

For prior discussions of this page, see Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/2005-08-25, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency.

Orphaned/Defunct project has not been updated in a long time and no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did). Clean up of WP namespace by deletion. Agriculture 03:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agriculture 03:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I moved this deletion here, because it was at AfD, and it was incomplete at AfD. In the process of doing so, I gained a new level of respect for admins and all people who know what they are doing! Wow, such a small move, so complicated! Xoloz 05:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think the project has basically been abandoned, after the big dispute in September anyway. Xoloz 05:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Since a member has come forward with the hope of enlivening the project, changed to Weak Keep. Xoloz 07:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this project is either an oxymoron or a euphemism for something we will WP:NOT do. Pointless either way around. Radiant_>|< 11:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no reason for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Prolonged inactivity isn't a reason? Xoloz 00:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't see why it would be. If it's inactive stick a historical tag on there and move on. 100+ pages link here; the content should be preserved for future reference. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Although the project has been rather inactive lately, I noticed that two editors have joined the project recently, one of them an admin. I also vote keep per above. I would be interested in couple of weeks (very busy in real world) in contacting some of the other members of the project to see if any of them are still at all interested in getting it going again. If none of the members care about the project, then it should be deleted. Banes 06:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously, as per Banes and Christopher.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 17:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I just joined and am interested in getting involved. How many more times do we have to go through this? Just leave it alone.Gator(talk) 18:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• This wikiproject serves no purpose and has done nothing to better Wikipedia... DELETE. Gateman1997 00:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• This wikiproject is at it's most useful when it is serving no purpose and should be deleted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep it has yet to develop into what it can be...which is a basis of thought over what constitutes content which will ensure Wikipedia is the most respected on-line source of reference material available.--MONGO 21:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Frivolous VfD. If some people disapprove of explicit images on Wikipedia and want to organize themselves, it is their own business. (In addition, this appears to be a bad faith nomination from a disgruntled former member of the project.) Strong keep. - Mike Rosoft 13:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Erwin
• Keep, important footnote in the history of the Wikipedia community. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this page and its subpages. While the keep voters (in particular, grm_wnr) bring up good points, we do have a policy against censorship that should be followed. We shouldn't be encouraging people to go against WP:NOT, as it has been well-established in our community. --Idont Havaname 02:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Whatever. Edit it if it bothers you so much. Ashibaka (tock) 20:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no reason for deletion. The project may be inactive now, but does that mean it has to be forever? Also seems a good idea to keep for future reference. -R. fiend 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is no reason for deletion --Rogerd 23:00, 14 November 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.