- 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. At the moment, I'm not seing a consensus to convert this WikiProject into a task force, but this close is not meant to stifle the ongoing discussion on the matter, which I leave to editorial discretion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Adventure games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
28 member project started back in 2007 and went inactive 2009. Had attempts to make a task force of WikiProject Video games back in July 2010, but it did not happened. Some discussions were minimal, but nothing worth keeping since the project died. JJ98 (Talk) 05:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) JJ98 (Talk) 05:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wonderful project. Substantial discussions. Excellent scope. Many incoming links. No reasons to delete. Absurd nomination. Inactivity is not a reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and mark inactive. broad scope (which is usually a criterion for keeping) - highly likely to see collaborative activity in future. Collaboration is a core activity of wikipedia, and I oppose any attempt to undermine that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taskforce of WP:WikiProject Video games per established precedent. (See here for subject structure.) SMcCandlish wrote on the talk page on 29 July 2010 as follows:
- "Most game-, franchise-, genre- and platform-specific video game projects have already merged into WP:WikiProject Video games as task forces/working groups, and there's no reason for this one not to do likewise. It's inconsistent to have it separate, and few editors are only interested in focusing entirely on one game or set of games, so forking this out into its own project actually impedes and splinters collaboration.'
- SmokeyJoe and Casliber: please cooperate with the cleanup/rationalization in this particular case, even if you have reservations about the Mfd process in general. Thank you. --Kleinzach 05:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a clumsy nomination that could easily result in deletion of material that should not be deleted, and it seems to me to be a misuse of Mfd that should not be encouraged. MfD is not "WikiProjects for restructuring". Any consensus seen at MfD for redirecting or merging or conversion to taskforce is likely a false consensus because participants here are not representative of interested editors. If deletion is really required, please ensure that nominations have some valid reason for deletion. If there is some dispute as to whether a page should remain live, or redirected or blanked, then MfD is available. If there is no disagreement, then see WP:BOLD. If someone objects, then it is easily reverted in favour of a discussion; see WP:BRD. If routine maintenance, like this seems to be, is repeatedly brought to MfD, than this process page that serves as an important administrative-action check can be swamped with busywork.
- That JJ98 is not even saying what he recommends as an outcome is frustrating. It is similar to someone taking a selection of Category:Articles needing cleanup to AfD in order to draw more attention to what they think needs fixing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe please take your general concerns about the process to the Mfd talk page. Given that almost all WP:VG related projects have been merged in some way or other into the parent, there is ample precedent for this bona fide nomination. Also note that when a project is dead, there are (by definition) no 'interested editors' following its discussion page. --Kleinzach 03:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was true, but it already is here, and merging is a perfectly valid suggestion in XfDs. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 18:01, 13 June 2011 (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.