- 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 keep. Greeves (talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This WikiProject is inactive since more than a year; the pages should either be removed or (if someone shows up here who wishes so) intergrated somewhere else. Note that, independent of the deletion of the project page, most of the assigned articles (about 60) are flagged for cleanup and probably fail WP:N. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms/Closure for a proposal how to proceed with the articles; comments are welcome. B. Wolterding (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporarily keep, mainly because deleting it would mean deleting the Closure Proposal linked above. It's worth keeping while the various Forgotten Realms articles go through cleanup, PROD and/or AFD (as appropriate), but once they've all been deleted or cleaned up there will be no more need for the project. Terraxos (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Inactive wikiprojects are usually not deleted. The fact that the assigned articles are flagged for cleanup is even mor reason to keep it, in the hope that someone will reactivate it and work on the articles, after all, there's no need for a wikiproject to work on articles that are already perfect. Also, they don't "probably" fail notability guidelines, either they do or they don't, and as they haven't been AFDed and have a wikiproject supporting them, I'll assume they do.--Serviam (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As said, notability of the articles is a different issue, but I thought someone here might be interested. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and mark as historical. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - and/or all articles can be folded into Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no grounds for deletion. Many projects go into recess for a year or more, and many have a very narrow spectrum of activity. Thus keep. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no precedent exists for deletion of inactive projects. --<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">Миборовский (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is the first time I've ever seen a wikiproject actually proposed for deletion, inactive or not. I fail to see the need. Rogue 9 (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the first time you see it, but certainly not the first time a project is nominated. See [1]. --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - When I think of Forgotten Realms, I think of the multitude of series of novels on my shelf, not the modules or gaming books that I personally classify as Dungeons & Dragons. Heck, they are in different parts of a bookstore for one. When a person reads a novel that has been on a bestsellers list, this does not make them a gamer, but rather a lover of fiction. The argument has been that these topics fail WP:N... that they should be included in a gaming wiki of some sort. How would a person who is not familiar with the gaming history of the world be familiar with the gaming aspects of the web relating to it? I would think that the purpose of Wikipedia would be to provide these readers with enough information to find out more about the topic, location, or character of interest. Until the policies relating to fiction can be resolved, this may be beating a dead horse. Anyway, I think the project has lost focus on its original intent, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted for it. The articles in question have been worked on, albeit not as fast as some individuals would like to see. However, they are being worked on. So, I also disagree with the OP's statement that the project has been inactive for over a year. I know it hasn't been. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The editors might be working, but the project itself looks quite abandoned. Look at the talk page. Last project-related talk page activity was on December 2007. In 23 March 2008 there was a complain that there were 50 articles under the scope of the project with notability tags, and nobody answered (it would be interesting to check if the concerns were really addressed, but the editor didn't leave a list of articles that we can check). In 12 May 2008 there was a proposal to close the project and nobody has answered yet. On the main page, the last activity related to the project apart from people signing up was on 26 February 2007[2]. That's not "losing focus", that's losing interest from the participants, and falling into disuse. I'm not sure that the project had been organizing at all the work of the editors working on the articles, more likely they just kept working on their own. I see no reason not to stamp a "historical" tag in order for people to stop singing to a project that is doing nothing and will do nothing on the foreseeable future. If you find people willing to revive it, then feel free to remove the tag and get the project working again --Enric Naval (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- well, if there is real work going on, maybe it's better to just mark as "inactive", so if people get the project working again, they can just remove the tag. The problem is not that there is no work going on, the problem is that the wikiproject is not being used at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:15, 5 June 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.