- 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 discussion was: keep. Only "delete" comment was condition as "unless someone agrees to maintain" and it appears that someone does. RL0919 ( talk) 19:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Stillborn Wikiproject. No active members. No discussions. No point having this around at all. The old activity on the talkpage was clearing bot notifications and page setup, no collaberation. Legacypac ( talk) 04:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - User:JarrahTree is an active editor. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone agrees to maintain. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Strong Keep - collaboration is how it is spelt. I have not a problem in reinvigorating this project as long as delete and the comments are not used in bad faith against efforts to re-invogorate the project. As to what consititutes project deletion, I am assuming that a willing re-invogoration of projects is not treated as badly as other parts of wikipedia when trying to re-start or maintain things. So yes, with AGF will try. JarrahTree 23:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- What was the thought process behind splitting this from an already narrow focus wikiproject that is a narrow focus off Wikiproject Music? The narrower the project the harder you have to work to find editors interested in a small pool of pages. Legacypac ( talk) 23:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- a long and complicated answer not appropriate here - with the opportunity - in process of resurrecting the project. JarrahTree 11:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason to delete. Has a non-trivial history, and worklist. At worst, tag "inactive" with a pointer to WP:WikiProject Musical Instruments. These WikiProject MfD nominations under cover of MfD disruption by Portal nomination spamming are themselves disrupting and need to stop. Read deletion policy WP:ATD, not that there is anything wrong with leaving this page exactly as it is. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- further comment - a lot of material that should/could have been included in the bagpipe area had been over time mixed up and ignored or appropriated by other projects - with a range of improvements in the time since the nomination, I believe that the project is viable, expandable and very appropriate and relevant project in view of its context within the range and simply is complex enough to be not in scope of neighbouring projects such as the instrument project.
- Of the over 200 variants of bagpipes, and the range of over 100 cultural contexts,(Podnos, Theodor H (1974), Bagpipes and tunings, Information Coordinators,
ISBN
978-0-911772-52-4) the bagpipe project justifies it existence as self evident - it is not just scottish... the focus is neither narrow or split off from anything other than absorbing the pipe band project. Ethnomusicology speaking there is a well based cross cultural scope that encompasses an ethnographically diverse geographical range that is not easily competed with apartfrom perhaps the string instruments related to the oud and lute.(Baines, Anthony; Blackwood, B. M; Penniman, T. K. (Thomas Kenneth), 1895-1977 (1995), Bagpipes (3rd ed. / [edited] by H.T. La Rue ed.), Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford,
ISBN
978-0-902793-10-1
{{ citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link)) JarrahTree 14:19, 15 April 2019 (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.
- 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 discussion was: keep. Only "delete" comment was condition as "unless someone agrees to maintain" and it appears that someone does. RL0919 ( talk) 19:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Stillborn Wikiproject. No active members. No discussions. No point having this around at all. The old activity on the talkpage was clearing bot notifications and page setup, no collaberation. Legacypac ( talk) 04:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - User:JarrahTree is an active editor. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone agrees to maintain. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Strong Keep - collaboration is how it is spelt. I have not a problem in reinvigorating this project as long as delete and the comments are not used in bad faith against efforts to re-invogorate the project. As to what consititutes project deletion, I am assuming that a willing re-invogoration of projects is not treated as badly as other parts of wikipedia when trying to re-start or maintain things. So yes, with AGF will try. JarrahTree 23:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- What was the thought process behind splitting this from an already narrow focus wikiproject that is a narrow focus off Wikiproject Music? The narrower the project the harder you have to work to find editors interested in a small pool of pages. Legacypac ( talk) 23:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- a long and complicated answer not appropriate here - with the opportunity - in process of resurrecting the project. JarrahTree 11:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason to delete. Has a non-trivial history, and worklist. At worst, tag "inactive" with a pointer to WP:WikiProject Musical Instruments. These WikiProject MfD nominations under cover of MfD disruption by Portal nomination spamming are themselves disrupting and need to stop. Read deletion policy WP:ATD, not that there is anything wrong with leaving this page exactly as it is. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- further comment - a lot of material that should/could have been included in the bagpipe area had been over time mixed up and ignored or appropriated by other projects - with a range of improvements in the time since the nomination, I believe that the project is viable, expandable and very appropriate and relevant project in view of its context within the range and simply is complex enough to be not in scope of neighbouring projects such as the instrument project.
- Of the over 200 variants of bagpipes, and the range of over 100 cultural contexts,(Podnos, Theodor H (1974), Bagpipes and tunings, Information Coordinators,
ISBN
978-0-911772-52-4) the bagpipe project justifies it existence as self evident - it is not just scottish... the focus is neither narrow or split off from anything other than absorbing the pipe band project. Ethnomusicology speaking there is a well based cross cultural scope that encompasses an ethnographically diverse geographical range that is not easily competed with apartfrom perhaps the string instruments related to the oud and lute.(Baines, Anthony; Blackwood, B. M; Penniman, T. K. (Thomas Kenneth), 1895-1977 (1995), Bagpipes (3rd ed. / [edited] by H.T. La Rue ed.), Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford,
ISBN
978-0-902793-10-1
{{ citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link)) JarrahTree 14:19, 15 April 2019 (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.