The result of the debate was mark historical, delete subpages (see below). — xaosflux Talk 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
RESULTS:
NOTE: FIRST NOMINATION is now located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concordia(2nd nom)
I first nominated Concordia way back in November 2006, which I withdrew because I hadn’t tried to engage with its members. It was tagged historical shortly afterwards, but with Esperanza’s demise, was resurrected; thus I don’t think tagging as historical is an option any more. As a question I asked on the talk page has now gone unanswered for over a month I think I have given enough time for Concordians to get their act together.
Concordia has been beleaguered with problems from its very start with what its aim and role is on the Wikipedia. The very first poster to Concordia’s talk page made this point:This project seems completely free of any actual plans. I can't add more to a project that is functionally vacuous. It seems absurd to have elections and publicity before you even decide on any sort of preliminary policy. And no, "reminding people to be good wikicitizens" is not policy, since it doesn't require or utilize any group effort.
Concordia never seems to have got past this stage. They built all the accoutrements and gewgaws of a project, but it never got off the ground. If you read the talk archives, it’s full of threads trying to think of some ideas to promote civility. They also spent more time explaining to people why they weren’t Esperanza than they did promoting civility. The one idea they had, a civility notice board, was promptly MfDed; as I noted on my previous nom, Concordia never seemed to get over this blow. I actually have personal experience of this, as I was briefly a member from August to September – when my every post was ignored or met with sheer misery, I eventually gave up on it. All attempts by new members, old members or me to get a clearer idea of where Concordia is going has been met with bitterness or resounding silence.
Ultimately, Concordia faces the huge problem that they have a great idea but absolutely no way of implementing it. Encouraging people to be civil to one another is a noble ideal, but you simply cannot do that through an image of a cup of tea and a notice board. Their latest idea is the help desk (which seems to be another notice board under a different name) – which no-one has used and my enquiry as to its purpose has been ignored for over a month. Concordia’s history consists of stumbling from one disaster to another – There’s nothing here, and it’s misleading to list it as a community organisation. Delete it, and have a nice cup of tea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts of historifying: IMO, this is a stupid idea. Whatever one may say about Esperanza, it did at least leave a large impact in Wikipedia, for good or ill. One can not say the same for Concordia. There will be nothing to write in an "essay" - they have managed nothing in the time that they have been active that has not subsequently be deleted. And, as I have pointed out above, whenever someone tagged historical, someone else takes it off again in a matter of days, but still doesn't activate the organisation. Instead it sails on, stately as a galleon and twice as obselete. It's listed on our community portal as an active organisation when no-one has touched it for a month. Please seriously consider what you mean by voting to historify - there's nothing to historify. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was mark historical, delete subpages (see below). — xaosflux Talk 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
RESULTS:
NOTE: FIRST NOMINATION is now located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concordia(2nd nom)
I first nominated Concordia way back in November 2006, which I withdrew because I hadn’t tried to engage with its members. It was tagged historical shortly afterwards, but with Esperanza’s demise, was resurrected; thus I don’t think tagging as historical is an option any more. As a question I asked on the talk page has now gone unanswered for over a month I think I have given enough time for Concordians to get their act together.
Concordia has been beleaguered with problems from its very start with what its aim and role is on the Wikipedia. The very first poster to Concordia’s talk page made this point:This project seems completely free of any actual plans. I can't add more to a project that is functionally vacuous. It seems absurd to have elections and publicity before you even decide on any sort of preliminary policy. And no, "reminding people to be good wikicitizens" is not policy, since it doesn't require or utilize any group effort.
Concordia never seems to have got past this stage. They built all the accoutrements and gewgaws of a project, but it never got off the ground. If you read the talk archives, it’s full of threads trying to think of some ideas to promote civility. They also spent more time explaining to people why they weren’t Esperanza than they did promoting civility. The one idea they had, a civility notice board, was promptly MfDed; as I noted on my previous nom, Concordia never seemed to get over this blow. I actually have personal experience of this, as I was briefly a member from August to September – when my every post was ignored or met with sheer misery, I eventually gave up on it. All attempts by new members, old members or me to get a clearer idea of where Concordia is going has been met with bitterness or resounding silence.
Ultimately, Concordia faces the huge problem that they have a great idea but absolutely no way of implementing it. Encouraging people to be civil to one another is a noble ideal, but you simply cannot do that through an image of a cup of tea and a notice board. Their latest idea is the help desk (which seems to be another notice board under a different name) – which no-one has used and my enquiry as to its purpose has been ignored for over a month. Concordia’s history consists of stumbling from one disaster to another – There’s nothing here, and it’s misleading to list it as a community organisation. Delete it, and have a nice cup of tea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts of historifying: IMO, this is a stupid idea. Whatever one may say about Esperanza, it did at least leave a large impact in Wikipedia, for good or ill. One can not say the same for Concordia. There will be nothing to write in an "essay" - they have managed nothing in the time that they have been active that has not subsequently be deleted. And, as I have pointed out above, whenever someone tagged historical, someone else takes it off again in a matter of days, but still doesn't activate the organisation. Instead it sails on, stately as a galleon and twice as obselete. It's listed on our community portal as an active organisation when no-one has touched it for a month. Please seriously consider what you mean by voting to historify - there's nothing to historify. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)