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: delete . Alex Shih (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Topicons[edit]

A low-traffic, drive-by-created Wikiproject with little participation, solving a problem that doesn't need solving. Step hen 23:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just mark it as historical? It's not like it's wasting server space. I'm not sure WikiProjects really need to be deleted, and the fact of their existence should be preserved as a record. Also, should we wait for further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § WikiProject Topicons first? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 01:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this was ever actually a Wikiproject, I might support marking as historical. But it wasn't, so marking as historical would be misleading. It's a borderline disruptive creation (seriously, a Wikiproject about a tiny element of userspace!?) and has potential to mislead newbies about what Wikipedia is about by overly focusing on userspace trivia in breach of WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. WJBscribe (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the sole member of the WikiProject I really have no opinion on the outcome of this. I haven’t created very many top icons yet, and I think there are only 50 total. If this page is deleted, I’ll probably just continue working in this area like nothing happened . I don’t think an entire WikiProject is nessesary if I’m the only person in it. funplussmart (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't work on this area. It doesn't need work and I'm sorry this page made you think it did. Feel free to have whatever topicons you would like on your userpage (within reason) but don't worry about how others are decorating their userpages. Please focus on helping to write or maintain encyclopedic content. WJBscribe (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do we have a WikiProject Userboxes? funplussmart (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Btw the false claim that the project has 32 members apparently resulted from a copy-paste from the userbox wikiproject. funplussmart (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WJBScribe; I was planning to MFD this myself once the discussion at the Village Pump was closed, but Stephen beat me to it. Marking pages as historical is a way to preserve the record of things that were once tried and later abandoned, not to preserve disruptive driveby edits. This is a non-project created by a non-editor—its founder has only ever made one mainspace edit—and keeping it (whether live or historical) is potentially actively disruptive as it gives good-faith editors the idea that micromanaging the minutiae of the interface is a sensible use of time. ‑ Iridescent 16:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WJBscribe and Iridescent - I'm all for marking everything as historical but I fail to see the point here - One wikiproject created this year by one editor and that one editor has only made one mainspace edit ..... One wonders why they're even here but hey ho, Pointless Wikiproject that quite honestly won't be missed and to put it even more bluntly I doubt it was even noticed by anyone. –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 27 September 2018 (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.