- 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 keep. Greeves ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Heroes
The project has very little activity. When I had put the inactive tag on it: a person removed it. The reasoning was: Disagree - don't forget that the show is on hiatus right now. A show being on hiatus, doesn't justify the project basically being on hiatus. As I checked the project page and talk page: I see about 2 or 3 somewhat active members. Also it should be noted: while Heroes is popular, it's still a broad scope. I would guess there is 20 to 30 total articles for this one television show. That's a broad scope, that certainly would be better off as a taskforce (if anything at all). The television project can handle this small scope just fine. I've seen too many of these small projects just die, become inactive and eventually deleted. Let's cut this one down when the signs of inactivity already are very clear. I'm in no way against Heroes, but I certainly think these broad scope/smaller projects need to go. RobJ1981 21:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep and move for speedy close. Heroes is a very popular show, there are dedicated editors willing to work on it, and the second season is approaching (which will spur input). There doesn't seem to be any point to this MfD. --
Ckatz
chat
spy 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Heroes is a TV show and thus while the show is on hiatus we can expect lower input since it's not foremost in peoples minds, we can expect more articles when the second season (and spinoff) come along, and a lot more writing, and it's good to have a framework in place for support for handling the inevitable articles and influx of editing those articles will have. Once there have been more episodes/series/other projects the long-term activity and support will be more apparent. As for wikiprojects with a broad scope, there are many, many projects with a far broader scope, in fact one TV show is pretty focused as wikiprojects go. I don't see a reason to delete a wikiproject just because it's small, especially if there is substantial reason to believe it will grow larger in time. -- Wingsandsword 01:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep I generally support deletion of dead Wikiprojects when they are truly dead. It appears from the page history that this Wikiproject is alive and well, and regardless of its miniscule scope, it helps its participants collaborate on articles. Shalom Hello 03:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. As I stated before: a show being on hiatus, doesn't justify the project is basically on hiatus. No project should work that way, period. While the project could pick up when the new season starts: the project shouldn't be so inactive in the time when it's in reruns. Also: I'm pretty sure this can't be speedy closed. In my opinion, that note was in bad faith. I had a good point to nominate the project. RobJ1981 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, please don't make subtle accusations that I was acting in bad faith. You're certainly entitled to your opinion that the project should be closed. I would expect to be accorded the same right to express my opinion, in this case to disagree. Asking for a "speedy close" indicates a strong belief that there is no need to remove the project - nothing more, nothing less. However, since the term bothers you, I have removed it. It's not worth arguing over. -- Ckatz chat spy 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep No real reason for deletion. I also find it reasonable for a wikiproject to have some "down" time when the subject matter itself is quiet. If someone provided objective numbers to show that there were fewer baseball articles in the off-season, I cannot see why that would be a reason to shut down WikiProject Baseball. If something is cyclical, that's no reason to terminate a wikiproject. I'd be more concerned if the topic was untouched at a time when it is current. Agent 86 22:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Taskforceify, everybody wins. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep A Wikiproject with 47 members, and someone watching it close enough that they would remove a historical tag on probably means that it isn't dead. The reason to remove the historical tag was correct. Heroes is currently on a season break, so it is natural for the project to have some down time. GrooveDog ( talk) 18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep I agree with other editors here that it should be allowed some downtown for a break in the TV show. I'd assume other shows have less activity when the show isn't currently active. The show is popular enough that I see its activity rising again when the next season is upon us. hmwith talk 22:17, 23 July 2007 (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 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 keep. Greeves ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Heroes
The project has very little activity. When I had put the inactive tag on it: a person removed it. The reasoning was: Disagree - don't forget that the show is on hiatus right now. A show being on hiatus, doesn't justify the project basically being on hiatus. As I checked the project page and talk page: I see about 2 or 3 somewhat active members. Also it should be noted: while Heroes is popular, it's still a broad scope. I would guess there is 20 to 30 total articles for this one television show. That's a broad scope, that certainly would be better off as a taskforce (if anything at all). The television project can handle this small scope just fine. I've seen too many of these small projects just die, become inactive and eventually deleted. Let's cut this one down when the signs of inactivity already are very clear. I'm in no way against Heroes, but I certainly think these broad scope/smaller projects need to go. RobJ1981 21:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep and move for speedy close. Heroes is a very popular show, there are dedicated editors willing to work on it, and the second season is approaching (which will spur input). There doesn't seem to be any point to this MfD. --
Ckatz
chat
spy 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Heroes is a TV show and thus while the show is on hiatus we can expect lower input since it's not foremost in peoples minds, we can expect more articles when the second season (and spinoff) come along, and a lot more writing, and it's good to have a framework in place for support for handling the inevitable articles and influx of editing those articles will have. Once there have been more episodes/series/other projects the long-term activity and support will be more apparent. As for wikiprojects with a broad scope, there are many, many projects with a far broader scope, in fact one TV show is pretty focused as wikiprojects go. I don't see a reason to delete a wikiproject just because it's small, especially if there is substantial reason to believe it will grow larger in time. -- Wingsandsword 01:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep I generally support deletion of dead Wikiprojects when they are truly dead. It appears from the page history that this Wikiproject is alive and well, and regardless of its miniscule scope, it helps its participants collaborate on articles. Shalom Hello 03:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. As I stated before: a show being on hiatus, doesn't justify the project is basically on hiatus. No project should work that way, period. While the project could pick up when the new season starts: the project shouldn't be so inactive in the time when it's in reruns. Also: I'm pretty sure this can't be speedy closed. In my opinion, that note was in bad faith. I had a good point to nominate the project. RobJ1981 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, please don't make subtle accusations that I was acting in bad faith. You're certainly entitled to your opinion that the project should be closed. I would expect to be accorded the same right to express my opinion, in this case to disagree. Asking for a "speedy close" indicates a strong belief that there is no need to remove the project - nothing more, nothing less. However, since the term bothers you, I have removed it. It's not worth arguing over. -- Ckatz chat spy 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep No real reason for deletion. I also find it reasonable for a wikiproject to have some "down" time when the subject matter itself is quiet. If someone provided objective numbers to show that there were fewer baseball articles in the off-season, I cannot see why that would be a reason to shut down WikiProject Baseball. If something is cyclical, that's no reason to terminate a wikiproject. I'd be more concerned if the topic was untouched at a time when it is current. Agent 86 22:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Taskforceify, everybody wins. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep A Wikiproject with 47 members, and someone watching it close enough that they would remove a historical tag on probably means that it isn't dead. The reason to remove the historical tag was correct. Heroes is currently on a season break, so it is natural for the project to have some down time. GrooveDog ( talk) 18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep I agree with other editors here that it should be allowed some downtown for a break in the TV show. I'd assume other shows have less activity when the show isn't currently active. The show is popular enough that I see its activity rising again when the next season is upon us. hmwith talk 22:17, 23 July 2007 (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.