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 Delete - the page appears to have become even more like the members' page and all members now appear to have their contribs listed, User:Nothing444's comments are given little weight as they were campaigned for, User:Basketball110's comments needed clarification which was not provided, therefore they are given no weight - as I can't understand the point any better than the editor who requested clarification. If the project decides through discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boston Red Sox that they need the page in the future they can recreate it or request undeletion at that time. Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 20:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Boston Red Sox/Scouting Office

This page is an unnecessary bureaucratic system. People in it can earn ranks and promote others to other ranks. Also, the whole purpose of what scouts do isn't very vital (they essentially are news reporters it appears). Do we really need 50 people one person in a WikiProject who report on the actions of people in the WikiProject? Metros ( talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I just changed "50 people" to "one person" per RyRy5's !vote that says he's the only contributor. Metros ( talk) 04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• Why MFD? If the people in the project don't find it useful, just delete it. I can't see how there could be any reasonable objection. Friday (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Well considering there are 53 people signed up as "scouts", I'd say that there would possibly be objection. Metros ( talk) 20:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Doesn't look like they signed themselves up. Looks like there's only one real contributor to this page. Once he understands why it should go away, it can be deleted by author's consent, I'd say. Friday (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep as creator. This is so the other members can see what is happening . It is supposed to be on the newsletter also. I do understand the whole promoting thing necessary and I think deleting that part would be fine. Yes I am the (only really) major contributer to this and I am fine with that. 50+ people are not reporting actions, it's really just me. This has had no problem before until now (if I sound mad I'm not, I'm just generally explaining what this is all about). Any comments?-- RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. In the point of view of keeping track of the number of members it is rather useful. I do suggest, though, it be cleaned up a bit, e.g. the bureaucracy. Basketball110 _{pick away...} 03:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I finished cleaning up. Comments?-- RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 03:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There's a list of members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boston Red Sox/Members. Why is a scouts list needed if we have that? Metros ( talk) 04:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
    • This list is different from the scouts list. This list are the members of the wikiproject. This different list are the project members who would like to scout and add reports to the mainpage for the newsletter.-- RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, I know that. But Basketball110 is saying it's useful because it tracks the members of the Wikiproject when there already is a list of the membership. Metros ( talk) 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
        • I think I need basketball110 to clarify.-- RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment well it looks fairly fine now that the ranks have been taken out (whoops, seems this section still exists). However, you may want to revise what these reporters supposedly should report on. Some of the things on the list of what to report such as someone being invited to/leaving the project, receiving/giving a barnstar, a Red Sox article being created, or a newsletter being sent out...is not really worth reporting and trivial information to be honest. I am leaning toward voting to delete however, it doesn't harm the project much. (edit conflict)But why is this page necessary if it is just a duplicate of the members list? ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• This subpage is confusing as well because the reporters give the impression that they are an invitation committee. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• And to follow up on Persian Poet Gal's thought...why does this news have to be released in addition to a newsletter? Wouldn't the important "stuff" be included in the newsletter? Metros ( talk) 04:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• (edit conflict) I will fix that. If you are saying that the list at the bottom of the Scouting Office is the duplicate, it's not. That list there is so that scouts can see other members contributions. I clarified there too.-- RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• And they can't go to the other list because? Metros ( talk) 04:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

(to Persion Poet) I didn't see that, all fixed. Anyway, Metros could you clarify?-- RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• • • • • • Why can't the scouts go to the regular list to see what the membership is doing? Why does it need to be duplicated to this page? Metros ( talk) 04:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
            • I see your point. Well, some members on the members list don't put their contributes such as User:Stormtracker94. If you go to the watch department, there is a smaller list than the actual members list and the department aslo has everyones contribs.-- RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
              • So, essentially, you can just clean up the regular list instead of duplicating it here? Metros ( talk) 04:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
                • The duplicate list is alot smaller though. Users wouldn't have to scroll down to find a certain member when the duplicate list has all the members contribs with an easier list to follow.-- RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 00:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment This appears to be a duplicate of the already-existing newsroom section of the project. There is no additional purpose to it that has been articulated. Still, I think it's better to work this out on the project talk page than at MFD- let the project have whatever pages they deem useful. I don't think the community at large needs to care. Friday (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. This kind of pages increase bureaucracy on Wikipedia. Macy (Review me!) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have cleaned up at the Type of Reports section.-- RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• Um you seemed to have just changed the wording of the section. See my first comment above (it would be ultimately better if you removed those things). The removal of the ranks section has addressed one of the main concerns that existed previously which is a good thing. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep So what? Its part of the WikiProject. What harm has it done? Nothing 444 01:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
  • To the closer: Please note that this !vote was canvassed by the creator of this Scouting Office. Metros ( talk) 01:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I do not know what canvassing is. Please provide a link at my talkpage. Thanks.-- RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 01:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete overly bureaucratic, duplication of existing pages, no real purpose at all. Hut 8.5 15:05, 13 April 2008 (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.