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/tag as historical. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The project is basically dead, and a good example of why throwing complex processes and bureaucracy at backlogs doesn't work. Mr.Z-man 15:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does it need to be deleted though; just tag the deceased. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, don't you mean historical? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. I was just trying to be funny/clever. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yeah just tag it, don't delete it. You never know if one day someone might want to restart it, and the list of articles needing cleanup it has might be useful anyway. Deamon138 (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not even sure it's completely inactive, there was a new member in July (see Wikipedia:Cleanup_Taskforce/Not_Dead_Yet) and discussion amongst users on their talk pages of taking articles for cleanup. The de facto coordinator User:RJFJR has not been notified. The ((inactive)) tag was only recently applied and is sufficient. Keep and do not tag historical.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag as historical; an inactive, redundant venue for article cleanup. - Icewedge (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tag as historical, if it really is historical. Even the nom mentions that (assuming they are correct) it is a good example of something to avoid. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current tag ("appears inactive") is sufficient. If the second last comment on its talkpage is correct, then the project page can be converted to a redirect to somewhere more suitable, subject to consensus on the talk page, not at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far too many dead meta things like this laying around. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but do the following:
  • The Cleanup Taskforce is only to be used after WikiProjects, article cleanup tags and article dispute tags (exception: devastated articles heading toward speedy deletion or AfD).
  • We should no longer put articles in a cleanup desk, but put articles for cleanup on the front page sorted by topic and sub-sorted in alphabetical order where any used can contribute to any article (learn from Esperanza).
  • The Cleanup Taskforce membership list should be sorted only in alphabetical order and not by user interests. The membership list should be cleared every four months on February 21, June 21 and October 21, user should re-register. Tcrow777 ^Talk 08:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ((inactive)) is good enough. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, yep inactive cuts it. It could, I could forsee, even be relaunched. A centralised Wikiproject, so to speak, for cleanup can't do any harm either. Computerjoe's talk 15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball, anyone? Computerjoe's talk 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just what I was thinking! :D Deamon138 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though I believe the correct thing to do is to keep and tag the project as historical, further discussion may be useful here. Two long-standing users who have the community's trust as administrators have suggested that old projects like this clutter Wikipedia space and should be deleted. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So, why does that suggest a need for more discussion? Although their experience is relevant, their status as administrators is not, and their arguments are not based in policy. Several guideline and policy pages talk about tagging rather than deleting WikiProjects. Certainly we are not going to start counting administrators to determine consensus. Still, I agree that this is not a snowball and the discussion should be allowed to run out the clock.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My focus was not on their status as admins but that two editors, in good standing, who are far from newbs and should be familiar with Wikipedia's Modus Operandi, have an argument for deletion. I agree that current process would not normally delete historical projects and I am in favour of that status quo. Perhaps, however, others agree with them and could put forward a more convincing rationale. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tag as historical This is a project that can be useful even if inactive (showing people open tasks). In addition, it won't be particularly hard to restart.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  14:13, 27 August 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.