Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Discussion about merging should continue elsewhere since there was some discussion about it, but there isn't currently consensus for deletion or merging. -Amarkov moo! 03:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern United States

We have the following existing US WikiProjects: WikiProject United States, WikiProject United States regions, WikiProject U.S. states, WikiProject U.S. counties, WikiProject U.S. cities, WikiProject U.S. special districts, and a project for each state. We also have Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board. Despite this, another regional/US related WikiProject has popped up. This is excessive and counterproductive, making things harder for the existing projects, as well as making things more confusing for new and existing Wikipedians. The one active member even started tagging articles, such as Hee Haw and RC Cola. I hate to seem harsh, but come on. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep-bad faith nomination by the nominator, who started blanking templates and deleting them from articles before even posting this nomination for deletion, and removing this proposal from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, where it had garnered several interested parties, falsely labeling the project as "inactive" in his edit summary, yet not labelling the project page itself with the requisite {{inactive}} tag. Nominator did not even see fit to post this before he started blanking. One editor does not a policy make. If this project proposal is indeed unnecessary and should be deleted, it needs to be decided by more than a single editor who lacks proper Wikietiquette. Chris 05:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Chris here is the one active member I spoke of. "several interested parties" were a total of four users including him. I started removing the banner before I was considering an MfD, since originally I was just going to be bold and make it a task force. "bad faith nomination", not only doesn't make sense, but is inaccurate to what is being to be asserted.
No offense to Chris, but he seems to have a misunderstanding of "procedure" here. The "inactive" tag is not required before an MfD, and one member in a WikiProject doesn't necessarily make it what one would call an "active" WikiProject. I find it ironic that he has a problem with me being one editor removing banners when he was the only one adding them.
Had there not been so many other WikiProjects that already cover this scope, I would have left the whole thing alone and moved on. This isn't a situation where time would bring more activity.
"If this project proposal is indeed unnecessary and should be deleted, it needs to be decided by more than a single editor who lacks proper Wikietiquette." I couldn't agree more, which is why I'm bringing it to MfD. At first I felt the banner issue was separate, and that the project was salvageable via task force (where it would share a banner with the parent project), but now I question the value in even that. There is no issue of bad faith with this nomination at all. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep & Merge - the only other wikiproject that adresses the unique and unified culture and history of the south as a whole is potentially Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board but it is just what it is, a notice board exclusively for southern wikipedians. i propose keeping the southern US wikiproject and merging the southern wikipedian notice board into it. being from alabama, i see it as problematic that the only project dealing with the south as a whole is exclusively managed by southerners. deleting WikiProject Southern United States only reaffirms that exclusion.Some thing 16:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The confusion for this is problematic. Even Southern United States does not know where the south ends or begins. Tagging of articles, getting collaborations and such would be better served by the individual states. I myself am from Texas, but do not see this project being useful because of the overlap of priorities. Joe I 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep & Merge with Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board. Also, it might be possible that such "regional" Projects could become subentities of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. I'd like to see at least the possibility of such explored before deleting the project. John Carter 19:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (Merging is also fine.) Considering the size of the US, dividing US-related content into even 100 Wikiprojects would not be unreasonable. Sure, it's a bit daunting... but building the encyclopedia is inherently so. There is no Wikiproject with which this is directly redundant, as it can cover regional items inappropriate for any one specific state or city. Xoloz 21:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I also note that while several other related projects exist, that is no guarantee that they will actually survive. A regional group would certainly be a reasonable project for which an inactive or defunct state project could merge into. John Carter 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it would be a great idea to discuss the destiny of all this US related wikiprojects somewhere else, not on this MFD.--Andersmusician $ 00:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, the South shall rise again! Hopefully this project doesn't though. Lankiveil 12:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep. Exact reverse of Lankiveil. Seriously, this is a topic that could use a WikiProject. Abeg92contribs 20:02, 14 May 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.