Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Health (2nd nomination)

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. Note that John Carter's proposal to "to create a more detailed and developed project page to replace" this project can be effectuated without page deletion, simply by replacing the existing content with a new version. John254 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Health

Project was previously nominated for deletion in October. At that time, the project creator said he would work on it later, as per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Health. That was almost a year ago. Since then, the project has had exactly two edits, both on January 13, not counting this nomination for deletion. Propose deletion of the project without prejudice for recreation. However, there clearly is absolutely no interest in this project with the project page structured as it currently exists. Project creator is being notified of this discussion. John Carter 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Deleting inactive projects is dumb. Why force it to be recreated from scratch when it is so much easier to reactivate an inactive project? You never know when someone will show up and want to join. I'm on standby if ever such and event should occur. Actually, one person did contact me over the past year because of that page, and wanted to collaborate. Nothing ever came of it, but it shows there's potential. The Transhumanist    22:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, I think one of the possible difficulties this particular project has is that it seems to me, at least, to be basically based on a template with little development beyond that. I would tend to agree that the subject may merit having a project; my reservations are really based on the fact that editors who might be interested in the idea of the project might be "turned off" by the skeletal appearance of it, particularly if they see how long it has existed. That's why I think maybe removing this page, so that someone else could create it from scratch, and it would at least visibly be a new idea as opposed to a page which has lingered for some time with no development, might be the way to go. John Carter 18:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — per TT. If it's inactive, tag it with {{inactive}}, but deleting it is ridiculous. --Agüeybaná 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy to whichever user account the Transhumanist prefers. (User:Go for it! redirects to User:The Transhumanist.) I note that in the last MfD (October 2006), he said: "I was delayed by another project, and will revive this one when I'm ready to work on the subject." - An excellent reason for userfication. (and of course, it's now September 2007...) This nom should also include Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Health/to do. - jc37 23:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete it. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - tag as {{inactive}}. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy: That's the best place for it to sit until there are members, creator can post a proposed project on WP:COUNCIL/P with a link to user space. Based on the scope of the subject matter this is not a good candidate for deletion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep as it is Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Introductions - I revived that after a year--Phoenix 15 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure the comparison is fair, that's a maintenance project, the work performed in 05 was useful without further activity as it acted as a sort of informal guideline.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, and tag as a {{historical}} page. It didn't look like it got off the ground much at all, but it's a wide topic and someone interested may be able to revive it in the future. Sebi _[talk] 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's tagged inactive and could reasonably be revived in the future. LaraLove 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep & retain inactive tag. Per Laura, etc. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Since when is a single user WikiProject an "inactive" one? Being a single user, means that this was never even actually a "WikiProject", except in naming... - jc37 18:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agreed. The project is one only by virtue of being so named and in Wikipedia space. It has never displayed the "collaborative" dimension required for a true project. John Carter 17:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I notice that most of the "keep" comments are "keep as opposed to deletion". Userfication, is obviously also "keep"ing and not deleting. - jc37 06:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would simply like to put forward the possibility that, were the extant page to be deleted without prejudice of recreation, I would probably try to create a more detailed and developed project page to replace it within the first week or so after deletion, and at the very least list it on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page to try to recruit more members. John Carter 14:34, 26 September 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.