Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject SpongeBob SquarePants

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 delete and restart. I think this is a good one to snowball... Everyone below is singing from the same sheet - it's clear the current / past setup of the Wikiproject is not wanted and needs to go. This will allow it do be restarted without all this baggage hanging over it. Thanks/wangi 18:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted all the project subpages with the exception of two, which I have userfied:

I have left the various templates which are tagging the related articles. I'll let someone else create a stub WikiProject and take it from here. Thanks/wangi 19:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, I noticed that AMK152 already had a "wikiproject in waiting" in their userspace, I have moved that over... So, back to it folk! Thanks/wangi 19:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiproject SpongeBob SquarePants

This WikiProject was started by an indefinitely blocked user (Sugarpine, a.k.a. ForestH2), and at least three of the members (Treebark, MatchPat, and Streamwater) are indefinitely blocked sockpuppets of this user (I also suspect at least one other, but don't have any proof). The WikiProject, while well-meaning, has wrapped itself in its own bureaucracy, starting "Board elections". The project itself hasn't been active in at about two weeks, save for one user (someone I also believe to be a ForestH2 sockpuppet) removing himself from the project's member list. I have seen no effort from this project to actually improve SpongeBob SquarePants articles. Delete project, and its subpages. Ral315 (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, although there are one or two editors in good standing on that list who aren't sockpuppets (such as User:Icelandic Hurricane). --Coredesat (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed; sorry if I implied otherwise. Ral315 (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It's all right, I just thought it'd be a good idea to point it out in case anyone suggests taking action on the suspected sockpuppets that haven't been blocked yet. --Coredesat (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - there might be a need for such a project but let us give real editors the chance to do it, rather than inherit the processes and mechanisms of a series of sockpuppets. --Charlesknight 08:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (I've left a message for Icelandic Hurricane in case they want to chime in). Yomanganitalk 12:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Joe I 19:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I don't really care which way it goes. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete after a chuckle at having board elections among a bunch of sockpuppets. Opabinia regalis 04:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we need a Wikiproject Sockpuppet - where all our various trolls use and create multiple sockpuppets to try and become head of the project. It would be like honey to them and they would spend so long trying to outvote and outdo each other that they would be too busy to do anything else.--Charlesknight 07:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Major Clean-Up - AMK152 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, no decision either way - AMK152 has posted to talk pages of editors within the project about this "!vote" discussion, so I've added {{AfdAnons}}. – Chacor 16:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll mention that to them on the message. I just want to let the Project members know. -AMK152 16:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay i fixed every message. -AMK152 17:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. per AMK152. The board's being abolished, just to let you all know. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 17:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Regime Transition -- Seems like a perfectly cromulent WikiProject, however, unless the WikiProject is really huge, get rid of all the bureaucratic claptraps and hand the WikiProject over to someone... not banned. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — AMK152 (talk · contribs) has tagged a large number of this projects subpages for speedy deletion. I am going to remove the speedy tags, but if this gets deleted then they should go too. Thanks/wangi 17:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That is the bad bureaucracy he's trying to get rid of, I think. – Chacor 17:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, bet it is... And it looks awful to me too, I just don't want to delete a bunch of subpages which make up a lot of the content of this wikiproject while this MFD is running. As for my personal opinion — delete (inc all subpages) but without prejudice, so it can be restarted without all this baggage. Thanks/wangi 17:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments The board just got too controversal. Forest created the idea and members built it up. but it started to get critisized (also the board didnt really matter, like positions would be worthless; how would the board have even functioned? different form non-board? Not at all- except just a few extra pages that are no longer needed.) -AMK152 17:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In addition, the blocked accoutns have been removed from the member list, the board is being abolished (as stated above). When Forest was in the project, he just seemed to try and improve the Project, rather than the articles. With him gone, this wont be so. The articles will be improved. Inactive? these Projects are inactive: Category:Inactive WikiProjects. The Project can be active once these situations are resolved. Many people stopped coming here most likely because of the Forest situation. -AMK152 17:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • RESTART PROJECT good concept. Bad members. Scrap the board, do a roll call, and redo it. This seems most plausable. Julz the wizkid
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.