Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Amboseli Biosphere Reserve

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 debate was delete with possible articles coming from contents stored in John Carter's userspace. нмŵוτнτ 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Amboseli Biosphere Reserve

Project does not seem to conform to most of the standards of WikiProjects, including having any listed members despite having existed as a page for a full year. Page also appears to be almost exclusively the action of one editor. Propose possible trans-wikiing if such is acceptable to another wiki, being broken up into articles as appropriate, or outright deletion if neither is acceptable. Individual active with the page is being notified of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks to me like there was arguably consensus for merger with WP:KENYA earlier in the month, but I have an issue with the Project page which seems to consist mainly of a "report" which appears to have been copied in its entirety from some other source - ergo copyvio - and which appears to be written by three people one of whom has the same name as the user account that is editing the project - ergo WP:OR, so it probably ought to just go. BTW John, I know that we usually expect there to be members, but I've never heard of it being a requirement, there has been some opposition to the concept of project members in the past at WT:COUNCIL under the argument that it creates a cabal.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - True. However, unless there is evidence of multiple people being involved in such a "collaboration" or WikiProject, then it does not qualify as a collaboration, and this page clearly has a "participants" section (15.4) which is empty. This page doesn't have a single person who has "signed on" to it in it's year of existence. John Carter (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, that wasn't meant so much as a counter-argument as simply questioning whether having members was a "standard of WikiProjects". There's definitely a serious issue here - probably several.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have copied the content of the existing page into my userspace, and will attempt to create separate articles on the various subjects covered on the page that would seem to meet wikipedia guidelines as time permits, eventually hoping to transfer all the verifiable information into main article space. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Thanks for all your interest in the project; I only just now noticed that it was under scrutiny by the WikiPolice. Let me try to clarify a couple of issues and make a suggestion.

I still stand by my comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Kenya on the point that merging with the new WikiProject Kenya would not seem to make much sense. It would, however, be a pity to lose public access to the information, so if the WikiTribunal decides merging is the way to go, sobeit.

John Carter is certainly correct that the level of participation has been underwhelming. I had really hoped that the project would afford the Amboseli stakeholders with the opportunity to participate by keeping their project information up-to-date and by adding new information on what's happening in the ecosystem. A 'one-stop shop' for such information should in the best of all possible worlds provide a knowledgebase as background for land use planning and donor intereventions. Perhaps that's naive. I believe one reason for the lack of participation is the fact that many Kenya-based stakeholders have unreliable and slow access to the Internet through dial-up. Others have none. That wouldn't excuse the university-based stakeholders, however, who are probably just too busy.

I find Doug's WP:OR comment a shade puzzling, since the project contains virtually no original stuff: it is a (hopefully) orderly compilation of the works of others, some published, some not. There is certainly no intent 'to advance a position', but just to put information in one place so that it can be improved and updated. Isn't that the point of a WikiProject? A place to 'help coordinate and organize article writing and editing' (Wikipedia:WikiProject)? The link to the WP:OR seems to pertain to WikiPedia not WikiProjects. Or am I missing something?

As to John's implication that the project is a 'self-publication effort', well, that's mildly offensive, even though I admit to being not above a spot of self-advertisement (see, for example, http://elephanttrust.org/node/461), but not quite yet to the point of advertising my SAT and IQ scores. I think I'm well enough published (see http://elephanttrust.org/node/374 ) to not need a WikiShowcase.

But before the project is flushed, could I ask this? Let me email the stakeholders, point out that they are missing an opportunity to improve and update information on the ecosystem they are all striving to maintain, and ask them to join the project. I'll include the UNESCO crowd, since they of all agencies should love the Wiki philosophy. If there's insufficient response over the next few weeks, then by all means take whatever action you feel to be correct.

Thanks for your attention. Harvey Croze (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Response: It should be noted that the purpose of a project is to work on articles, not to try to store content, as this project seems to do, in a single Wikipedia space page. So, in a very real sense, this project seems to violate the existing standards of projects, which is to work on articles, which this project has to date not done at all. As such, although the project might be potentially useful if it were to be altered to meet regular project guidelines, the existing page would, frankly, be an impediment to meeting those guidelines. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Response: Well, seems to me that had people contributed to the piece with updates and additions as I'd hoped, it would have been tantamount to 'working on an article'. But, OK, if I really have violated the WikiProject rules, Doug's [1] rendering of them notwithstanding, then what if we change the burdensome page into a WikiPedia entry on Amboseli Biosphere Reserve? Actually, two pages, since there is the associated WP:WikiProject_Amboseli_BR_Activities. Folks who are concerned enough to contribute new ecosystem information or update their older material can do it there, correct? Harvey Croze (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, as long as there are no copyright violations in any of the separate articles. I've stored them all in userspace myself for that purpose, although I'm not entirely sure when I'll have the opportunity to write them. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• No offense was intended, it appeared to be User:Harvey Croze's work, which would be WP:OR or WP:COI to the extent it was intended for that user to use on Wikipedia and to the extent it wasn't intended for use on wikipedia it would be irrelevant. On the other hand, if the information is intended to be summarized and linked to so that others can reference it (or if it is discussing works by others who work independently from you) - it may be fine but I don't think it needs it's own project. Either merge with WP Kenya as some sort of /References or /Resources subpage or place it in the creator's userspace. Anyone can access it from either place. Same with the information that John salvaged from WP:WikiProject_Amboseli_BR_Activities before it was deleted. Unless it's determined that this should all be transwikied to another project. If you want to preserve it long term, I'd suggest an independent website with a link on Project Kenya to the external site.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 5 March 2008 (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.