It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.
There are no separate for venues for the deletion discussion of WikiProjects, thus all WikiProject deletion discussions are to be taken place at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (MFD) and are subject to the guidelines of the same.
This page, however, maintains an automatic list of the ongoing deletion discussions of the various WikiProjects, or their subpages, and serves as an one-stop destination for those who are only primarily interested in WikiProject-related MfDs.
As long as Joe is putting up WikiProjects for deletion, I thought I'd put up my very stale task force I created when I was in my West Wing fanaticism phase. I may come back to that phase, but neither I nor the project needs this task force :) Since there are a few other people who signed their name, I thought I should bring it here rather than nuking by G7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, talk page never used, so it doesn't seem in need of archiving/redirecting. Appreciate the self-nom. CMD (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as what looks like basically a G7 to me since it's only been edited by one person. Parenthetically I am a little confused as to how five names got onto the list of participants without them being in the edit history -- presumably this page was copied over from a subsection of some other page that had them all, or else some kind of formatting error(?) jp×g🗯️07:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The talk page of a WikiProject or task force is a better measure of activity than the project page. The absence of a talk page, after two years, is reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Unnecessary nomination. The process for creating new WikiProjects is recommended, not required, and the older WikiProjects have talk page discussions and archives that should be kept. If you don't want to join WikiProject Kamala Harris, then don't, but I don't understand the crusade to delete multiple WikiProjects outright. Inactive projects can be merged and/or archived. ---Another Believer(Talk)15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The process is optional but the underlying logic—that you should find out whether anyone wants to work with you on new wikiproject before you spin up a whole set of project pages and categories that will need to be maintained indefinitely—has proven to be sound advice time and time again. I would have proposed merging them into WP US Presidents if they had ever been active, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Can you point to any significant talk page discussions that are worth archiving? – Joe (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not involved in any of the Wikiprojects, I just saw them in the Women In Red talk page, and I do not plan to get involved as these topics stress me out; but I do not think that they are necessarily redundant to WikiProject United States Presidents as that page covers all USA presidents over nearly 240 years, whilst these 4 are extremely recent and hence will probably have more coverage and articles. Additionally, many of these will have others article unrelated to presidency (e.g. Donald Trump's various crimes). I also believe that discussing these on the relevant WikiProjects for all 5 of them would be a better idea than nominating for deletion. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of comparison the only other wikiprojects that cover the leaders of a specific country are WikiProject Sinhalese Monarchy (defunct for a decade) and WikiProject British Royalty (active). There are no wikiprojects devoted to one specific politician apart from these four and WikiProject Barack Obama (also inactive). Of course where you draw the line in determining wikiproject scopes is arbitrary, but the evidence that individual US presidents/presidential candidates are not viable topics of independent wikiprojects is that the oldest was created in 2009 and none have ever been active. – Joe (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't think we need individual projects with 100 or so articles to them. I said so last night when I saw AB make the KHive project. Delete Kamala as its brand new. But I'm inclined to keep the others because Wikipedia:WikiProject#Inactive projects says These projects are retained for reference as they may be viable because they provide topic-specific considerations of the many site-wide policies and guidelines that still apply to a subset of articles. And I advise using the recommended protocol for project formation in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WikiProject United States Presidents per Shushugah. There isn't enough activity around all US Presidents to prevent articles about these four from getting the attention they need from the wider WikiProject. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)21:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoWikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents. In addition to the activity considerations mentioned above, it seems beneficial to group conversations in an area not framed around a single individual. A visual indicator of writing in the broader encyclopaeidic context, and possibly also avoiding recentism. CMD (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have a hard view at this point on whether to keep these or not, but I do think that if the result is "Delete" or "Redirect", it should be a soft redirect from their respective front pages, with each project marked "inactive" and perhaps all their project pages tagged with {{historical}}. I can't fathom why we would want to destroy this work or make it too hard to find, particularly in cases where the WikiProjects have been around for years. Also, perhaps their members/participants should be informed. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no actual participants and no work to archive. They aren't former groups of editors that went active; just pages that AB creates every four years then abandons. That's why they are at MfD rather than the usual discussion about merging inactive projects. – Joe (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of listed participants in the Joe Biden WP, for example, and even though I'm not listed, I did cleanups of their listed articles recently. I don't see a hard reason to make them disappear. Mothballing is within reason, though. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk06:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per WP:AGF and common sense, these WikiProjects seem to have a serious purpose. Just because the creator maybe didn't stick around doesn't mean others didn't take them seriously. I'd go by the rule of thumb of whether the projects received significant action or not. If they did, mothball them with a soft redirect. If very little or nothing, then delete/redirect. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk06:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, I'd just put these in the "little or nothing" category. Putting your name on a list takes five seconds. I don't consider that a sign of life. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something: it seems unnecessary to have these as separate WikiProjects in their own right (since nobody really participates in them as such) but it does seem useful to have these categories for the sort of bizarre twilight-zone thing we actually use WikiProjects for, which is tracking edits to groups of related pages, making lists with User:HotArticlesBot, sorting stuff like {{expert}} templates, et cetera. At the very least, for actively campaigning candidates or sitting presidents I think it does; I don't know how much it makes sense to have a super-narrow categorization like this for Hillary or Obama or W. But if you look at, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Donald_Trump#Article_alerts you can actually see a pretty decent slice of articles broadly related to Trump and his administration (I'm not sure why Wikipedia:WikiProject_Joe_Biden doesn't have the same thing, but you get the idea). jp×g🗯️11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What about making "Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris", "Wikipedia:WikiProject Joe Biden", "Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton" into task forces or something like that? Historyday01 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue there is that since these are dead wikiprojects they'll just end up being dead taskforces. I understand that residual tools like Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump#Article alerts can be useful but the point of wikiprojects and task forces is to assemble a group of editors, not categories. And of course without the editors to maintain the categories, those will also slowly decay. What I think we should be exploring instead is whether tools like article alerts can be adapted to work with mainspace category trees, which are maintained. – Joe (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, more or less. The whole WikiProject framework seems kind of bizarre and arseways for about 99% of them -- we have a few (milhist, vidya, storms) that actually involve active coordination between editors, and then about nine million like Theme songs, Animals in media, Limnology and Oceanography, Islands, etc where it's not really clear what it means to be a member or participate in them, and they just kind of exist for the sake of being an ad-hoc categorization system. For a while I have dreamed of doing something about this but I don't really know what it would be. jp×g🗯️09:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single musical artist) whose creator has since been indefinitely blocked and only has three other participants. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a SZA task force of WikiProject Music might be an alternative, but again this needs more than a few interested editors to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the previous nomination until now, but it closed as no consensus and I think the reasoning above still holds. – Joe (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that my previous !vote for Weak Keep was mistaken because I did not take its out-of-process creation into account. Also, since the first MFD, the originator has been indefinitely blocked by the community. Remaining good-standing editors should consider a task force. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikiproject pages should be those of real and functioning projects, and article talk pages should not have project tags for wikiprojects that were only nominally there but never really got off the ground. Abortive wikiprojects created outside of the recommended process should be deleted.—Alalch E.21:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who said in the previous MfD that this should've been created as a task force under a more general WikiProject. Still, there are very few (read: one) people who actually consistently edit SZA-related pages anyway---the rest joined after that MfD---so I don't think even a task force would be useful. This discussion raises a compelling argument about whether we should convert most musician WPs into task forces, and I look forward to seeing where that goes. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise]03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Great idea. This has come a few times as I've been reviewing inactive wikiprojects recently. Even after the projects die, people find the assessment tables and article alerts useful, though they also become less useful over time because nobody is keeping the banners of dead wikiprojects updated. I wonder if they could be made to work with mainspace categories instead? – Joe (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories is a great idea. Category:SZA has the relevant articles to here. Banners not being updated is hopefully less of an issue with WP:PIQA formally unifying assessments, but still worse than categories. Food for longer-term thought. CMD (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single city) with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Jerusalem task force of WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created out of process. Activity is negligible. A task force might be better, since there is an existing project with a larger subject area. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These misguided WikiProjects do not seem to have the defenders that misguided portals have. Maybe that means that no one thinks WikiProjects are mystical. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject with only two participants. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a task force of WikiProject Cricket might be an alternative, but again this needs more than a few interested editors to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appear that misconceived WikiProjects do not have the enthusiasts that misconceived portals do. Maybe that is because no one thinks that WikiProjects have mystical qualities. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikiprojects don't have that mystical appeal because they are not "nice" like portals. Portals are "kinda nice". Wikiproject pages are generally ugly.—Alalch E.21:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another attempt to spin off a WikiProject for a random franchise cricket tournament. In my view, we should be merging all the existing cricket spinoff WikiProjects (IPL, WPL, PSL, LPL etc) into WP:CRIC task forces, not creating more. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Dardistan task force of WikiProject South Asia might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created out of process. The process needs to be better publicized. Page views show that it has no views more days than it has views, which implies that it does not have utility. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, suggest the nominator seek other editors in existing Wikiprojects and create something in userspace if they wish to refer to it. CMD (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the nominator says, not a WikiProject If an abandoned draft article, a duplicate. Any unique information in it can be merged into the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that too but the creator made almost all their edits in one spree in April and hasn't been back since. Not opposed, though. – Joe (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single artist) with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Ledisi task force of WikiProject Music might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know there was a process but that's fine if you want to delete it. I just noticed that there was a Wikiproject for other singers and I thought this would be a helpful tool for anyone who wants to help contribute. Sackkid (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thanks. By default, I think it’s better to preserve history of anything ever used, unless it should never have been created. However, if someone, especially someone from the WikiProject, has a rationale for deleting over archiving (history behind redirects), then I have no objection to deletion. I think wikiarchiology is a good thing to be allowed to happen, and that deletion requests should give at least lip service to why archiving is not a good idea. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historical purposes. This userbox is displayed on the user pages of a few users who are no longer active and therefore unlikely to replace it now that the wikiproject no longer exists. Keeping it serves to preserve their user page as it was and to help anyone who happens to come across them find out where the former WikiProject Colonialism now resides (via the redirect to WikiProject History). – Joe (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
