Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo

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 Keep. Consensus exists that this project may develop into something useful, and should be given time to flourish. Should it languish, or devolve into a WP:OR vehicle, then it may be brought back to MfD again. Xoloz 15:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo

Delete A NPOV and OR violating WikiProject. Created to define what bands are "Emo" and what are not. Project has one member. These are not the kind of WikiProjects that should be encouraged. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, POV and OR. It seems to reflect just what one user (the only member of the wikiproject) thinks is emo. --Coredesat talk! 07:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not supposed to reflect what any user thinks of "what is emo", it is supposed to improve bands articles related to emo music in one way or another. If you keep a track on wiki pages on "The Used", "MCR", "JEW", "Thrice", "SOTY", "FATA", "FFTL" ... - the genres of the bands are changed a couple of times per day, their discussion pages are in as major hiatus as you can get it. People use multiple discussion wiki pages to argue what is emo and what is not - the point of starting the project on emo music was to summon up all emo-related aspects in music in order to fairy assign the label to the above mentioned bands and more.

Iceness 3:51 26 Sept, 2006 (GMT)

• Weak keep, give it a chance for the time being, revisit it in a month if the situation has not improved. Besides, "WP:EMO" seems inherently funny. Also this might serve as a good centralized venue for discussion regarding the emo-ness of various bands, especially those which are subject to near-daily anonymous edit warring for that reason alone. —freak(talk) 07:16, Sep. 25, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, because if the WikiProject was truly Emo it would have deleted itself. --Aaron 07:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note the project has at least four subpages that would also need to be deleted if the conclusion of the discussion is delete. Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo/To Do, Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo/Discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo/Discussion/The Used, Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo/Positive Factors. -- Ned Scott 08:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. The project is also very new, it may not have had time to garner any members. I do note that the creator of the project has shown some activity lately on the page. However, the attempt to probably somewhat arbitrarily define the genre is disturbing. If that were removed, I could support giving it time to develop more strongly. Badbilltucker 16:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

His recent activity was to re-insert a fair use image that I keep removing from the page (due to our fair use policy). -- Ned Scott 19:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

On the basis of the clarification above, I withdraw my Very weak keap in favor of Strong Delete. Any wikipedia project which seeks to define something that exists outside of wikipedia on the basis of wikipedia input is violating original research guideines, point of view guidelines, or very likely both. Badbilltucker 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment on the Ned Scott user - his reaction on the project was utterly negative from the beginning (refer to discussion page), his actions of deleting the image were uncalled of (no post/prior notification). Iceness 3:51 26 Sept, 2006 (GMT)

Fair use violations are removed on the spot without notification. Using a fair use image on the WikiProject page was in violation of a policy on Wikipedia (WP:FUC) and would have been removed regardless of how I felt about the project. -- Ned Scott 22:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The WikiProject was created for "standardizing and improving articles related to emo music and its sub-genres, along with making it easier to classify certain group of bands under the appropriate genre": completely legit scope. Iceness, a newbie, needs a three-sentence explanation of the original research policy in order to clarify the classification process, and problem solved. This MfD is premature. I additionally echo freakofnurture's final point. ~ PseudoSudo 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a really weak reason to split a project from WikiProject Punk music. -- Ned Scott 03:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per Freak and Pseudo for now. They need to be careful about WP:OR but that can most likely be dealt with by defining the term in terms of X number of independent sources or something like that. JoshuaZ 04:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There's only one member... and again, should we even bother when there's already WikiProject Punk music? We're diluting our efforts here.. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The project is not two weeks old, what we deal with here is one user being picky on the project because of his obvious dislike of the subject of the project in the first place. I've already explained to the above user on the project discussion page that Wiki Project on Punk music is not related to Emo music in any way or form. In addition, I find the structure of the project I've started more logical than Wiki Project on Punk music which only lists the bands supposedly related to Punk genre, while my project is structured to make a list of attributes related to Emo genre in music/vocals/lyrics in the first place, and only then discuss bands accordingly. The number of users is bound with the age of the project. Iceness 3:51 26 Sept, 2006 (GMT)

You assume I'm "attacking" you and that I don't like emo music. Where do you get off on that? You kept reverting a fair use image on the WikiProject page repeatedly after I told you that policy did not allow it You created a questionable. WikiProject that doesn't even seem to say what it will actually DO for article, only that it plans to be a place of discussion (WP:NOT says Wikipedia does not exist to be a social networking site). You did not seem to be familiar with common policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. Your judgement in this case was called into question after a fair evaluation on my part. It has NOTHING to do with music preference or someone being picky. Rather, my conclusions are rational and obvious. WikiProjects are not sandboxes. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain what discussing an encyclopedic topic has to do with social networking? ~ PseudoSudo 11:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussing the topic is sometimes reliant, but discussions should be about improving the articles. Discussion on the topic alone would be nothing more than social networking. -- Ned Scott 22:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now, give them some room to breathe. If they start engaging in OR, then deal with it. WP:NOT for pre-emptive strikes. -- nae'blis 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just keep thinking about WP:SNOWBALL, but in a different light. That is, this WikiProject has about a snowball's chance in hell of being successful and/or useful to anyone. Might sound harsh, but we all know it. Voting keep to be nice is.. nice.. but it doesn't get things done and just opens the door to okaying other otherwise useless and/or POV pushing WikiProjects. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know it, and several other keep voters above don't seem to know it. This is a brand new wikiproject, it might serve as a good clearinghouse per freakofnurture, and your badgering in this MFD is frankly worrisome when it comes to your motivations. I've got better things to do here on Wikipedia than stomp on somebody else's well-intentioned efforts to make the encyclopedia suck less. -- nae'blis 15:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnature suggested it as away to watch a group of articles from getting bad edits, which would be a very good reason for a WikiProject, but still does not appear to be a goal or motive of WikiProject Emo even now. Right now the project page suggests two things, that it's a place for Wikipedians to discuss Emo music, and a place to categorize what is or is not Emo music. If freakofnature's suggestion is taken up, then I would see that as a good thing. Please do not call my valid concerns on this issue "badgering". This is a discussion on the matter, and just because I have something to say on the issue doesn't mean I'm out to attack anyone personally. That in itself is not assuming good faith. As I said above, I had plenty of reason to come to the conclusion that the WikiProject was made in error due to Iceness's apparent lack of knowledge of core policies and guidelines, such as NPOV and NOR. I have no reason to attack anyone personally, nor would I. Changing the reasons for a WikiProject after the fact seems to be a poor reason to keep it, especially when it doesn't appear that anyone in the project will see those changes through. -- Ned Scott 22:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aaron. In all seriousness, doesn't appear to be an active attempt to improve articles. Ral315 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, so long as editors rely upon secondary sources to determine whether a band is or isn't "Emo" and the sources meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliability. Morton devonshire 02:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, for now. Might be helpful, might stir up strife, but it is less than a month old so we really don't know yet. --tjstrf 07:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Joe I 23:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Yes, I know, I keep changing my mind about this, largely because of the input of the rest of you, for which I am very thankful. I still seriously question whether this project, as currently formatted (which is the only evidence I have) meets the NPOV requirements, and note that the project page still does nothing to lessen those concerns. However, I am willing to give the members of the project the chance to prove that they can meet those requirements. I strongly urge them to look over the project pages of other similar projects and adopt the less debatable goals, objectives, and methods of those projects, and change the project page to be more in keeping with the requirements of wikipedia. Having said that, I think there would be no objection in letting them keep the project for 30 days and then, if the same concerns exist at the end of that period, start the process over again. So, I change my opinion to Keep with the potential to revisit the matter should the concerns not be sufficiently addressed in 30 days. Badbilltucker 14:41, 1 October 2006 (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.