- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. Xoloz 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dead WikiProject that really serves no purpose but to promote bureaucracy South Philly 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lenthy talk page, the subject of active discussion, also helps keep up morale. Abeg92contribs 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary, bureaucracy that has been rather disruptive in the past and failed numerous times to really reform. The awards don't need any kind of oversight, which is long what this project has actually been doing. Pointless time sink which diverts editors from actually improving the encyclopedia. IvoShandor 14:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Changing to Neutral based on some comments below, still stand by opinion that this project isn't necessary, everything it is doing could easily be accomplished on the barnstar talk pages. IvoShandor 06:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Disruptive to whom? It's not like they have power outside their project. I don't see how it's your business how someone's project is run. -N 15:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it not? I am an editor like any other, the way any project is run is everyone's concern. Projects aren't some little autonomous authority that is allowed to flaunt consensus and policy. The project has continuously been disruptive by purporting to exercise power over the awards process, consistent uncivil bickering within it's project pages, etc. How that isn't everyone's concern eludes me. Perhaps you can illuminate me on this. IvoShandor
- Comment: There is absolutely no bureaucracy on that WikiProject at all. Anyone can join, anyone can contribute, and the talkpage is currently littered with requests for help. One wonders whether South Philly actually read the page at all before nominating it. DevAlt 15:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rewritten the main page to reflect the deprecation of Barnstar Proposals. Hopefully that will clear up the confusion some have been having about the project. DevAlt 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous nom: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards --- RockMFR 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Talk page shows activity that debunks it as a "dead" project. The project doesn't seem to be putting rules or any other bureaucratic hurdles to giving out awards. I do find it odd that a person listed as a participant in the project is nominating it for deletion (twice). -- GJD 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See the discussion in the previous nom. This is a WP:POINT nom by someone who seems to still be upset that a larger group of Wikipedians came in and made the project democratic. It *was* turning into an ugly mess when S.P. and Evrik were trying to run it, but it is fine now. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Further discussion regarding this nomination may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#When will South Philly stop harrassing me? --After Midnight 0001 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I really don't see the problem. If the concern is that awards are a waste of time, we should delete much of the project! YechielMan 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikihalo2 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals ^demon[omg plz] 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Yechiel. If we keep awards and barnstars, it is a good idea to have a Project that keeps an eye on them. It seems to have settled down now. --Bduke 01:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If the project is attempting to regulate awards, that's a problem that should be dealt with, but just constructing a listing of them and helping others design them is fine, and that's what the project supposedly does. Oh, and as a note to the closing admin, "delete" should probably be interpreted as "tag historical". -Amarkov moo! 04:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Bad faith nomination (again) from a user still upset over huge consensus against his attempt to have a coordinator (and who has time to leave messages like this one). WP:POINT applies here. Project works just fine. Raystorm 10:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This actualy has value towards wikipedia. Wikipedia can sometimes be a stressful place. I believe that it makes some people feel better to get an award. In other words it boosts moral. The higher the moral of an editor is the more active and productive he will be.--James, La gloria è a dio 01:37, 4 June 2007 (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.