- 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing/to do (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
To-do list that hasn't been maintained for 5 years. Doesn't serve a purpose anymore, as it presents ridiculously outdated information on talk pages. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this is a project page and they can police their own pages. You also haven't even notified the project that you are trying to delete some of their pages. If the project wants them deleted, they can request it themselves. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the project that no one's done anything in since 2008? I'm sure I'll get loads of people telling me what to do with this page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The members list has been updated last month, and a discussion thread appears on the talk page last year, so it's a good idea to post a message, since it does appear active. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, actually I do mean that, TPH. You've been told multiple times to leave WikiProject pages alone as the projects themselves can decide what to do with them. This project was active at one time, and therefore the pages should simply be tagged as inactive. This allows future people to come along and pick up where others left off rather than reinventing the wheel, so to speak. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "/to do" pages are a standard bit of WikiProject boilerplate (unlike the article list also currently at MfD), and shouldn't really be removed from active projects. If the rationale here is that the project is defunct, there should be a request to get it closed down (which would result in this being marked as historical). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep – Simply because the project has seen recent activity and two new members have recently joined (diff1, diff2). Deleting the project's to-do list would be entirely counterproductive at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While you're entitled to your opinion, I disagree with your assessment in this instance, because per WP:SNOW, "The clause should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone's time." This is appropriate, because I predict that this nomination for deletion will not succeed whatsoever.
- Additionally, and importantly, the Wikimedia Foundation's goals include: "Wikimedia is a global movement whose mission is to bring free educational content to the world." and "Through various projects, chapters, and the support structure of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia strives to bring about a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." (Underline emphasis mine).
- Removal of vital pages within a project when people have recently joined that project goes directly against the Wikimedia Foundation's goals. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, as the premise (the project is inactive) is flawed, given that there are some modest signs of activity. The notice thing is a problem as well. It's not snowing as such, but Northamerica's point is a valid one, I think. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:01, 14 May 2013 (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.