Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject The Vines

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 no consensus. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject The Vines

A WikiProject maintaining a total of 23 articles, and only one active editor (who hasn't edited anything in over a month). -- Longhair\^talk 08:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian music already includes all the content in its scope. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, unless someone can show that keeping this wikiproject poses a threat to Wikipedia's existence and success. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete in favour of AUSMUS, per John Carter. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sounds like the project is still active. But could encourage a merger. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What evidence do you see that this is active? I see no edits to the project page since last July (excepting the deletion of a cat by a non-member).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I would allow a project at least a year of inactivity after life before pronounced dead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, a bit long for me, but I just wanted to make sure you didn't see something I didn't.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep One of the editors listed disappeared under strange circumstances.... In any case, there is utterly no harm in allowing the project more time, and there is harm in debating deletion. Leave it alone. You can never tell when someone else will come along, and they should not have to reinvent the wheel. If it's true that there is duplication, then redirect and merge, it takes no debate at all, if nobody objects.--Abd (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't have many articles and the band themselves haven't done enough to have their own Wikiproject. Martarius (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WikiProject should have five editors before starting. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 00:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Before starting what? Classic way to start a project: Start the project, then identify others to join and invite them. With some projects, the project may lie fallow for a long time, the original proponent might disappear. So? Someone else may come along, and use the project page to improve the encyclopedia. At what point does a "proposed" project -- i.e., one with a project page but little or no activity -- become harmful enough that it is worth the effort of deleting it? I don't see any harm at a year, at all, if the project has potential use. Beyond that, I don't see any harm in waiting, so, unless specific harm is alleged, I'd highly recommend keeping it. Merge, as proposed, can be done by anyone without an MfD. If nobody is active, it's very simple, takes much less time than an MfD and, by definition, won't be controversial. Just replace the page content with a redirect. It would be a courtesy to at least notify the merge target Talk of the redirect, so someone interested can know that it is there and can find it and recover content, if any, from History.--Abd (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Graeme. This probably would be good to merge into another project, but it's not clear this project is totally dead. (And even if it is, is there a compelling need to delete it?) Mangojuice^talk 18:05, 21 March 2008 (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.