- 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 delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 07:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dynasty Warriors[edit]
Another clean up effort from the Video games project's inactive project clean up (see talk page for more details). This project has been tagged as inactive since November 2007 and does not seem to have any members. A talk page has not been started and the project page only has three edits: #1 Creation of the page #2 Tagging as inactive months after being created #3 Tagging for MfD. There does not seem to be any interest in the Project and if interest does arise, it would probably work better as a task force under the Video games project. I believe deleting the page will help further consolidate resources and prevent new and less-experience members from stumbling through a seesea of defunct project pages. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
*Keep as inactive or historical. Resources are a non issue, the page will still be there. — MaggotSyn 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Misread. The mission can still be changed at a later date, upon new member activity. My decision remains the same unless there is a crucial reason why it needs to be deleted. — MaggotSyn 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, the resources I'm talking about are the normal policies, guidelines, assessment, peer review, etc. pages that make up a normal project. Rather than have a sub project with its own pages, it's easier to maintain and enforce such practices when they are more centralized. Also, with the numerous sub projects of the Video games project, it can be confusing for new members to navigate the numerous pages to find what they are looking for. If interest does increase down the road, it would work better as a task force of the VG project rather than a full Project. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Yeah. I had already struck out my comment. I tend to agree with you on that point, but seeing as how there aren't any of those now, you are just arguing for the likelihood that they will be created. Still, I'd rather see the projects mission changed and kept for historical purposes just in case some of our many editors think they can tackle it. :) — MaggotSyn 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, there was an edit conflict and I thought it was with SJP, so I just pasted my original comment below yours.
Anyway, my main concern is not the project's mission—it's perfectly fine for a project or task force—but having some new or less-experienced editor stumble across this page and try to make it active again. Such a feat is near impossible for a single editor and I would like to save them the time and frustration. I'm certain that if there is interest later, a task force could be made very easily. (In fact, we would have just redirected it to a task force page if there was some wanning interest.) But for that to happen, editors should get some help from the more experienced editors at the VG project. Having a disjointed page like this makes that more difficult. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Nevermind, I just can't seem to keep up with SynergeticMaggot. :-p (Guyinblack25 talk 20:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete This project has never been active, and it is pretty old. Its future looks very grim. A project that is inactive is no help to the encyclopedia, and a project that never will be active will never be a help to the encyclopedia, thus I say we should delete this. I understand that it is common procedure to tag inactive wikiprojects as inactive, or historical, but in this case I just don't see the point. If this project had been even somewhat active, it would have enough value to just tag it, and not delete it. This project has never been active though, so we have nothing to preserve.--SJP (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - My explanation extends to the reasons previously stated: It has basically zero-edit history on main page, none on talk page, and no current or seemingly previous interest. If someone wants to, they can recreate it in the future, but with only three edits, I see no reason to do so. Even redirecting isn't really plausible with no sizable edit history, I feel. --Izno (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After reconsidering a second time, I have to agree with Izno. — MaggotSyn 20:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I didn't want to suggest it without a few more deletes, but as Synergetic has come over to the delete side, this one might be worth speedy deleting per G6 - Housecleaning. Either that, or a reduced time period (a la a Prod). Just a thought. --Izno (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its a bit quick (this just got to MfD) but who knows. I've seen stranger things happen. :) — MaggotSyn 20:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an empty shell that's never been used and is surplus to requirements. All items which would fall under the project's remit would already fall under two existing projects: WP:VG and WP:3K, IE one for the medium and one for the setting. I can half-see a case for redirecting as opposed to deleting productive wikiprojects, but what's to keep here? Wikiprojects have purposes and mechanisms which need maintaining, without active participation they do not have a purpose and the mechanisms grind to a halt, they also give the impression that someone will actually answer queries and offer guidance when needed. Should a query be sat around for a month without a response then the so-called project does more harm than good. Likewise, a separate project suggests that room for discussions and collaboration exceeds what individual article talkpages can offer - not the case here. Someoneanother 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's absolutely no interest in it, has no history to preserve and is indeed surplus to requirements. Deletion would be the best option here. --.:Alex:. 11:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete two edits before MfD, and not much there at all to record for historical reasons. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing to retain for historical purposes. Zero interest (although the games were pretty cool, albeit repetitive). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:50, 18 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.
}