Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject The Flaming Lips

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. IronGargoyle 23:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject The Flaming Lips

Far too specific for a Wikiproject, only 1 member, appears to ignore Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Initial considerations Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't like to set a precedent that this is too specific as we have some excellent narrowly focussed WikiProjects; I do however recommend Delete since this appears to be a one man project with no goals or organisation and it has been untouched since creation a month ago. --kingboyk 11:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn pending progress reports. Let's see what they can do. --kingboyk 20:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This wikiproject just started, guys. It now has 2 members and there are other wikiprojects on specific bands, (see Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF). Granted, that one has a lot more done, but it's been around far longer than one month. --Rajah 15:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • All I can suggest is that you get a plan of action pronto. The founder created it a month ago, and hasn't touch the page since. You've just signed up today. I'd hardly call that 2 members. The possibly-well-chosen-retort of WP:KLF (because that's my pet project) started off as an effort at Category talk:The KLF[1] and only became a WikiProject when we had a Featured Article. We now have 4 (and front page on Friday, yippee :)) --kingboyk 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: While, yes, it does need to get into gear, I don't understand at all what you mean by that can "hardly [be] call[ed] 2 members" - it is in clear fact precisely two members, the project founder and the active recuit. What possible dispute could one have that this project does actually have two members? <fzzt - spark - pop> DOES NOT COMPUTE! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The other solution would be to start off as an informal grouping in talk or user space somewhere and formalise your efforts when you have a plan which you've started to implement, just as we did. Otherwise I can almost guarantee your project will produce nothing except a stack of talk page banners. --kingboyk 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: Who is "we" in "just as we did"? Without context, the anecdote doesn't seem to really convey anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not certain if Kingboyk is directly implying that 2-person wikiprojects are useless, but I can at least rationally infer that, and have to say that this is emphatically not the case. Small projects can in fact produce good results if the small number of participants are active and of a single mind on how to create and improve artcles within the purview of their project. That said, I reiterate that this project's topic does seem awfully specific. A higher-level, multi-artist genre project might attract more editors. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. (MajorB 01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)) Previous comment: I am the founder of the Project. I would vote Keep, but I don't know if I'm allowed to. I created the project with the intention of first creating some focus and then eventually advertising it once major work on Zaireeka was completed. That article is currently in copyediting. I should have known better than to wait to really make it known, but I will work to raise awareness. In addition, I felt it was notable enough for a WikiProject because of a large fanbase, the other band-based Wikiprojects, etc. And, besides, they've won a few Grammys. -MajorB 19:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, you can !vote Keep, and especially since you've given a clear rationale for the opinion, I would move that your previous message be reckoned as such. And, yes, the band is certainly notable, so I wouldn't give that concern any more thought. Just make the project useful. It is a bit specific, and thus unusual in that regard. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: A task force of what though? Task forces don't just float around out there. It sounds to me like you are making a WikiProject Proposals style argument, which may or may not have merit, in that forum. But this is MfD. I don't see any MfD-cognizant rationale for deleting these WP:-space pages. Ergo... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: ...This is obviously an under-construction WikiProject and MfDing it while two participants are actively saying "but, hey, we're working on this" strikes me as a bit pre-emptive and premature. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now: It has active partcipants and is a young project. Give them some time to really prove themselves.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 08:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • When I found it, it had one member and hadn't been edited in almost a month. It was not "obviously an under-construction WikiProject" when I found it. I did not MFD it "while two participants are actively saying 'but, hey, we're working on this.'" It looked to be abandoned. So before you go around criticizing people, look at the situation in context. As for what Project it could be a task force of, how about WikiProject Alternative music, linked to on the project page. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:44, 9 March 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.