Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia and Portal:Serbia

These are totally inactive and were created by a user now banned after problems in a related subject area (Kosovo) who also exercised partisan ownership over them [1]. The Portal has had the same "featured article" since June. There is no activity on the WikiProject talk page except for some mass messages sent to all WikiProjects and a message about how it is a failed project that should be moved to WikiProject Belgrade, and a message about removing the banned user from the list of participants, both of which received no response and were over two months ago. The Portal talk page has nothing on it whatsoever. There are also all the subpages that should be deleted as well. —Centrx→talk • 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - I don't see what the fact that a now temporarily banned user was involved in both the WikiProject and the Portal has to do with why you think this Wikiproject and associated Portal should be deleted. Also, just because the pages are not very active does not mean they should be deleted. I also am wondering why you did not discuss this first before nominating them for deletion in either talk pages, or on the WikiProject Council talk page. (I believe it would have been brought to your attention that there are many other geographical WikiProjects that are not active -- see the directory) I believe because of this both should be speedily kept, and together we should focus on recruiting new members to this WikiProject instead. // Laughing Man 01:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There has been no activity on the talk page for months (or, in the case of the Portal, ever). WikiProject Council says that is for inter-project relations and says nothing about what to do with defunct projects. This is the page for discussing it. That it was created by this user is relevant in that:

• It is the only user who ever did anything on these pages.
• This user OWNed these pages and used them to push a particular point of view, and is banned for disruptive involvement in the same areas (Note that one year is the maximum ban the Arbcom gives out; "temporarily banned" is misleading.) For example, the same issue he reverted over for the featured article on the Portal is one of the issues he was edit warring about in the Arbcom case.

Also:

• Since you have been referring only to WikiProjects, what do you think about the Portal?
• These pages are not simply "not very active", they are totally inactive and have never been active.

—Centrx→talk • 05:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the fact there has been no activity on the talk page, I would like to point out this goes for you as well -- if you are so concerned with project and portal, I find it disturbing that you have not brought up any of your concerns on either talk page ever.

This MfD is about the two pages in question, not User:Bormalagurski. ArbCom handled the case and I don't even want to discuss this further since it is not relevant in the MfD. Look at the current version of both pages and please point out any issues with them, not the blocked user.

I've been refering both as my understanding is that the portal is supported by the Wikiproject. So let's do what we can to fix that -- WikiProject Council has a guide does have some suggestions for what we can do that I feel will help to revive the project -- the key one I feel is to recruit more members. I believe that is a start, then we can go from there. // Laughing Man 06:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I came upon the inactive WikiProject and Portal after finding Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/countering anti-Serb bias, a previously re-created page of Wikipedia:WikiProject countering anti-Serb bias which was deleted as a POV-pushing project at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject countering anti-Serb bias, which you also defended. This MfD is the place to discuss what to do with this WikiProject and the Portal; I see no problem with bringing wider discussion where there would otherwise be none, or perhaps you alone. —Centrx→talk • 22:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me again ask you, please discuss the two pages you have nominated for deletion. The other Wikiproject discussion is over an consensus has been reached, which you evaluation is incorrect -- and I will not discuss it here as we are trying to determine what do about the pages listed in this MfD. I don't know why you keep reaching for anything else to discuss instead of directly discussing the articles listed in this MfD? // Laughing Man 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just responding to the statements in your comment as to why there was no previous activity from me and why the MfD is appropriate. As I said below, I don't see how you are going to create a project when there has never been any activity and when a related, apparently more active project, is also dead. —Centrx→talk • 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This user OWNed these pages and used them to push a particular point of view, and is banned for disruptive involvement in the same areas (Note that one year is the maximum ban the Arbcom gives out; "temporarily banned" is misleading.) For example, the same issue he reverted over for the featured article on the Portal is one of the issues he was edit warring about in the Arbcom case. How did he push his POV through these pages? Only because he reverted the featured article? By the way, I put Kosovo as the featured article. --Krytan 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and aside from that one action, six months, there has been no other activity there except sockpuppets POV pushing and edits reverting them. —Centrx→talk • 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not familiar with the backstory here, so I'd have a hard time picking out the POV problems. Still I'd rather err on the side of having nothing than promoting his POV. If no one's going to pick this up, it should just go. –  Anþony  talk  15:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How can you "vote" to delete when you can not point a single issue with either page? Currently there are absolutely no POV problems in either page. Have you reviewed the pages? Please point out what you think is a NPOV problem. Also, how you can say "if no one's going to pick this up, it should just go" -- please review my comments as well. // Laughing Man 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel a need to prove an POV problem. I have reviewed the page, but my unfamiliarity with the subject could mean that there's some patently offensive POV sitting in plain view that I wouldn't recognize. "Nothing" is definitely NPOV and is preferrable to an inactive Portal anyway.

I did see your comments, which I interpreted to mean that you want to go around looking for other people to take over, not that you yourself were volunteering to do so. If you are, my first suggestion would be to join the WikiProject and update the portal with new content. If you're willing to do that, I will change my vote. –  Anþony  talk  17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so your voting to delete this based on apparent POV problems but you can't identify any POV problems, got it. // Laughing Man 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're so intent on keeping it, why won't you take some time to work on it? The complete lack of activity is reason enough to delete it. The POV complications are a minor factor. So far you've complained about issues of procedure and attacked the arguments to delete, but I still see no compelling reason to keep these pages if they're not going to be updated. –  Anþony  talk  01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you believe am I doing now spending time on this MfD and coming up with suggestions for what we can do help revive the project? I'm not "complaining" or "attacking", I'm simply trying to make it clear why I feel the pages should not be deleted. You may feel there is no compelling reason to keep them, but there is no compelling reason for deletion. It seems to me your reason now is that since the pages are not active enough they should be deleted. // Laughing Man 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You haven't put forth any reason to keep them at all. You've said that Centrx should have initiated discussion before moving to MfD, that the banned user is not a problem, that there are no POV issues, and that you'd like to focus on attracting new members. None of those are reasons to keep. What are two static and inactive pages doing for Wikipedia? Why is it a good thing to keep them here if they're going to stay as they are?

I've told you I will change my vote if you take up the project. If you think the pages are really worthwhile, that would seem the surest way to keep them. –  Anþony  talk  01:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I added myself to the project list, perhaps my intentions were not clear. // Laughing Man 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Portal has not been modified at all since this nomination, which is half of what I was looking for from you. When I said "take up the project", I meant the project to improve both pages, not simply to add your name to the list of participants. Your repeated dodging of the task is not very convincing evidence that you're truly trying to revive the WikiProject or the Portal. –  Anþony  talk  20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - Issues on these problems weren't even brought up on the talk page before its nomination for deletion. Its reason for deletion mainly revolves around the fact that a banned user created the wikiproject, and how he apparently pushed his point of view... (vague) We should focus on bringing more members to this project, and analyze what needs to be done to make this portal a success before jumping the gun and nominating it for deletion. --Krytan 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There was a proposal on the talk page to fold it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgrade because it was a dead project, but that received no responses or any discussion whatsoever, and the project proposed to fold it into is also dead, e.g. [2]. It might not be a big problem to tag it as {{historical}} but neither the project nor the portal have ever been active. The only activity has been a small amount of POV pushing and sockpuppetry, and I am not going to vet it or monitor it for bias or sockpuppetry. Given that it has never been active, I don't see how you are going to summon participants. Is there some page with information about and reasons regarding closing WikiProjects? —Centrx→talk • 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Krytan and Laughing Man. This project should be revived not deleted. The main problem is all the members joined and never checked the page again. As the only person, along with one or two others, who ever updated the page, I'd be willing to get it going again. As far as the portal goes, I think that can be deleted.--Еstavisti 02:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Utter nonsense. Like "keep" users above. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Laughing Man and Krytan. --Djordje D. Bozovic 15:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. That is important project, relationship this Wikipedia with Serbia and Serbian culture. --Djordjes (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pure BS if you ask me. I expected more of centrx. --Filip (§) 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have anything to add to the discussion? —Centrx→talk • 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Other than "I agree with the first part of Francis' comment", no. It's really beyond me why you started this? Out of pure contempt, or jealosy, or purity? Whatever the reason, I don't aprove it. --Filip (§) 10:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I am worried by the notion of "countering anti-Serb bias". It suggests a pre-concieved view of bias as opposed to judging the article on it's merits. The page has the potential to be used as a rallying point to stack votes. The lack of activity suggests the page is just a front for pushing a certain POV. Definite delete. iruka 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself and removed it (based on previous consensus). Unfortunately the way page is organized by splitting contents into templates and subpages, it never showed up on my watch list. I will work on flattening the page so changes can be monitor from one watchlist. // Laughing Man 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to point out that centrx removed the link to deleted page (from previous consensus) and instead of removing the line entirely [3] which was what should have been done in the first place. // Laughing Man 21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Am prepared to change my vote to keep b/c the offending comment has been removed, and it is no different to similar national wikipedia projects. But I think the original owner's (banned user's) reference be removed & a new owner nominated. Laughing Man, are you happy to take ownership of the project or know of anyone else that wants to? iruka 16:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep as per Laughing Man. It might not show on the project page itself, but there is alot of collaboration on articles between members. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If they are collaborating but never on the WikiProject or its talk page, what is the point of the WikiProject? —Centrx→talk • 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it is an useful project. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, project that is important and project plays a major role in Serbian topics such as collaborate editors together, to do list, as per Laughing Man's reasons too. Terence Ong 08:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral No-one "owns" a WikiProject, and inactivity is not a reason to delete. But on the other hand how useful are "national" WikiProjects? - Francis Tyers · 10:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Activity on these WikiProjects is cyclical. It would be a waste to delete one which will inevitably be created again once activity picks up. --Thewanderer 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The creator of the project being banned is not a legitimate reason to delete it. -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Djus 21:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete We've deleted WikiProjects in the past that were attempted but never got off the ground. Considering the bad start of this one, I would think editors here would prefer a fresh start. I don't really care strongly if it is kept, but it seems many of the keep supporters are taking offense and missing the point of this nom. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The WikiProject did not get off to a bad start, the Wikipedian who started the project just had a bad ending. I think editors here would prefer to keep the project and get it active again as you can see that the ones who voiced there opinion here are suggesting we keep the page. // Laughing Man 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So in a few months when nothing has happened with the WikiProject and it's just as dead as it is now, can we delete it? I fail to see the logic in making a project active only to keep it from deletion. If there is a true demand for this WikiProject, then let it happen fresh. Maybe an assumption of bad faith by me, but I don't think the keep supporters will suddenly become active members and make this project work. In the very least, let's tag it has inactive. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It should be noted that Laughing Man individually notified the members of the WikiProject, which might be considered votestacking or canvassing.[4] If the WikiProject were truly active, the members on should have been sufficiently notified through the MfD tag and would not need to be contacted directly. Instead, we get a number of keep votes immediately following Laughing Man's notices and still no activity on either page. –  Anþony  talk  20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nah, I'd say it's pretty fair to notify participants of a WikiProject. I see what you're saying, though, but I wouldn't call it "vote stacking". -- Ned Scott 21:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to comment that I have already said that I notified everyone I asked members to participate on the talk page here -- It seems you missed this in your watchlist, just as I thought project members could have missed the MfD added the main page.// Laughing Man 23:36, 6 January 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.