- 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 (and tag as inactive). Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Redirect. Another wannabe bureaucrat project lost down a cul-de-sac of past conversations. 8 members. Started 2006 but only lasted a couple of months, revived 2009 but again collapsed after a few months. (subpages: none identified). Suggest redirect to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines rather than delete. -- Klein zach 02:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- oppose. What is with the recent flurry of We Must Delete WikiProjects? It's not even been marked defunct! And it serves a unique purpose in terms of scope - it's not like it can be merged into another project. At worst it's harmless, and shows a bit of the history of what people have been trying to do. At best, it can remain an occasional inspiration (people often massively underestimate the value of low-to-no-activity WikiProjects - much of the activity they are intended to inspire need not show up on their pages or with any reference to them). Rd232 talk 08:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The nomination was not for deletion. -- Klein zach 09:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, mark as inactive, that's what we normally do with such projects - the proposed redirect would hardly serve any useful purpose. (I think we should be trying to activate this one again, though - even people at the Foundation are mentioning the need to get our policies and instructions in order so as not to deter potential new editors.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 11:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We must try to active it not to delete it. -- Seyyed( t- c) 00:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep significant archived discussion with plenty of scope for revival. The fact that the project was revived in 2009 suggests it could be revived again and there is certainly scope for a project to improve policies and guidelines. We don't delete Wikiprojects simply because they happen to be inactive at the moment, only when they have no content worth keeping. Hut 8.5 11:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment 'Policy and Guidelines' is evidently a potent name (witness the reaction here and opposition to a never-suggested deletion), however does anyone have any constructive ideas about how to structure the project so that any future revival lasts more than a matter of weeks? Thank you. -- Klein zach 02:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as there is no valid reason for deletion (or redirection). Per the MfD guidelines, inactive projects should be marked as such, especially if they had any significant activity at all. This project clearly has that, and therefore fails any valid reasoning to delete or redirect. Also, this discussion is on whether to delete or redirect, not on how to revive it; that discussion is for the project talk page. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Close this debate as unworthy. Redirect at editorial discretion. Discuss on the talk page if required. Read WP:Consensus and WP:BRD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:17, 28 April 2011 (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 (and tag as inactive). Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Redirect. Another wannabe bureaucrat project lost down a cul-de-sac of past conversations. 8 members. Started 2006 but only lasted a couple of months, revived 2009 but again collapsed after a few months. (subpages: none identified). Suggest redirect to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines rather than delete. -- Klein zach 02:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- oppose. What is with the recent flurry of We Must Delete WikiProjects? It's not even been marked defunct! And it serves a unique purpose in terms of scope - it's not like it can be merged into another project. At worst it's harmless, and shows a bit of the history of what people have been trying to do. At best, it can remain an occasional inspiration (people often massively underestimate the value of low-to-no-activity WikiProjects - much of the activity they are intended to inspire need not show up on their pages or with any reference to them). Rd232 talk 08:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The nomination was not for deletion. -- Klein zach 09:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, mark as inactive, that's what we normally do with such projects - the proposed redirect would hardly serve any useful purpose. (I think we should be trying to activate this one again, though - even people at the Foundation are mentioning the need to get our policies and instructions in order so as not to deter potential new editors.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 11:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We must try to active it not to delete it. -- Seyyed( t- c) 00:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep significant archived discussion with plenty of scope for revival. The fact that the project was revived in 2009 suggests it could be revived again and there is certainly scope for a project to improve policies and guidelines. We don't delete Wikiprojects simply because they happen to be inactive at the moment, only when they have no content worth keeping. Hut 8.5 11:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment 'Policy and Guidelines' is evidently a potent name (witness the reaction here and opposition to a never-suggested deletion), however does anyone have any constructive ideas about how to structure the project so that any future revival lasts more than a matter of weeks? Thank you. -- Klein zach 02:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as there is no valid reason for deletion (or redirection). Per the MfD guidelines, inactive projects should be marked as such, especially if they had any significant activity at all. This project clearly has that, and therefore fails any valid reasoning to delete or redirect. Also, this discussion is on whether to delete or redirect, not on how to revive it; that discussion is for the project talk page. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Close this debate as unworthy. Redirect at editorial discretion. Discuss on the talk page if required. Read WP:Consensus and WP:BRD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:17, 28 April 2011 (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.