Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Nine Inch Nails

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 No consensus. Delete it because it is inactive and overly narrow. No, keep it for historical value. Hey, let's turn it into a task force of WP:WikiProject Alternative music. Wait, who says they will do anything with a task force they didn't ask for. All reasonable arguments, which despite a couple of extra weeks never gelled into a conclusion. I will, however, take a step similar to what I did in another recent "no consensus" close and mark the project as {{defunct}} with a pointer to the Alternative music project. If someone there wants to turn it into a task force, then more power to them, although I note that this WikiProject was preceded by Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Nine Inch Nails task force, which is also long inactive. --RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nine Inch Nails

Only 21 members, this project has been inactive and no activity since. JJ98 (Talk) 19:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Task force-- for WP:WikiProject Alternative music. There is a proposal on the talk page for it. If none of the editors are up for it, however, then delete. --E♴(talk) 19:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason to delete WikiProjects for bands. Fans of a band will work on a project for that band, keeping everything together in one place, instead of trying to sort through it mixed in with a hoard of other bands that are in the same genre, Category:Alternative_rock. If its not active at times its because nothing has happened for awhile there. Should anything new be happening with the band, the fans might get active in this again. Dream Focus 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was active 2007-2008. Project died three years ago. No revival has ever been attempted and any future work using past project records is highly improbable. Scope far too narrow. Nothing of any substance worth saving. (One editor proposed to make it into a task force of Alternative music in December, but (typically) never carried out the move.) --Klein zach 04:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support task force There's a some wonderful organization we can retain. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonable focus for a WikiProject. Contains useful material for future revival or assimilation by a larger WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that WP:WikiProject Alternative music want this as a task force? If not, I still think it should be deleted. --Klein zach 02:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the guy who set up the Alt-rock project, and I said yes above. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Noted. --Klein zach 05:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As deletion is not easily reversed by ordinary editors, and as some people think that a decision to delete today should be binding over future interest, I would ask for evidence of lack of interest. This would mean asking and waiting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative music. Looking for opinions at an inactive location, such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Nine_Inch_Nails#Proposal_to_make_this_task_force, is not an effective way to seek input. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with your last point, but not with the idea that "some people think that a decision to delete today should be binding over future interest". Anyone thinking of starting a project with the same title (as a previously deleted one) can put it up it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals in the usual way. --Klein zach 03:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that I think that if deleted, this page should be freely userfied (without DRV) for someone who wants to put a renewed version of it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would seldom be against userfying — but for whom? --Klein zach 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We previously had someone turn up late and start a DRV over a worse WikiProject. If someone turns up later expressing intense interest in this one, I mean to advise them to request userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Task force of WP:WikiProject Alternative music per WesleyDodds (above).--Klein zach 05:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a task force, probably of WP:WikiProject Alternative music. It's been my experience that full WikiProjects dedicated to a single musical artist/act almost always die of administrative overload. The scope is too narrow to warrant the administrative overhead of a full project. The WikiProject Council guide recommends that if a project might only ever have a few dozen articles and a handful of members, a task force is a much more suitable alternative. The topic of Nine Inch Nails has ~83 articles in its scope and isn't likely to have a great deal more (given that the band is now mostly inactive). The project has been inactive for about 2½ years and has only ever attracted ~21 editors. Becoming a task force wouldn't change how the project works in the most fundamental area — article improvement — it'd just get rid of the unnecessary overhead: The task force could benefit from using the parent project's administrative infrastructure, which is already in place. Editors interested in continuing to collaborate on NIN articles could easily continue to do so via the task force, and becoming a task force would encourage members of the parent project to join the task force, thus spurring activity in the most critical area: actual article editing. A vast majority of artist-specific Wikiprojects peter out and become inactive; a task force of a larger parent project is a much more suitable means of encouraging editor collaboration around artist-specific article families. --IllaZilla (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone explain to me how just changing the name from "WikiProject X" to "X Task Force" is better than deletion? All it does is change the name; it doesn't suddenly make new users pop out of the woodwork to revive it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We've established that Nine Inch Nails is not viable by itself, however if the related project (in this case WP:WikiProject Alternative music) want the material (as indicated by an active member WesleyDodds) then surely it's reasonable to give it to them? --Klein zach 22:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for the MfD forum to "give it to them". Beware Scope creep. If a WikiProject wants something for their own taskforce, it is for them to take it. Or some individual could, on their own judgment, do the work. Having and MfD discussion reach a decision to assign something somewhere risks writing a false consensus (easily achieved here, given the low participation) into stone. Better to leave it as is, clearly tagged as archived, for some future editor to use as he chooses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder that too. Better to leave it alone than to have people who are not genuinely interested transform it into something else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe: Why do you think that the music editors who have taken the trouble to comment here are "not genuinely interested"? Am I missing something here? --Klein zach 10:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, all my fault. I was agreeing with the sentiment about renames from "WikiProject X" to "X Task Force" in general terms, but not specifically in this case. The statements from the music editors here make my statement non-applicable to this specific discussion.
In general, I don’t think MfD should be renaming WikiProjects to Task forces. If it makes sense for such a rename, then MfD should resolve to “keep”. The rename should be done at editorial discretion, preferably by a genuinely interested editor who will continue to work on the Task force. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This March 20 Mfd will never be closed so perhaps we can use it for general discussion? IMO the Wikipedia namespace is the engine room of the encyclopedia. We have to keep it clean and tidy and above all functioning. (It's not the encyclopedia, nor is it a social network.) When people nominate WikiProjects to Mfd it's because they have failed. We have various options, but 'Keep' is usually the least satisfactory because it merely leaves the thing in limbo — waiting for the next time someone discovers it in a category, or a list, and nominates it for another Mfd. --Klein zach 09:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A failed WikiProject should not be deleted just because it looks failed. If there is a history of activity, it should be archived and readily available. If there is any possibility of revival, even in another form, the work already started should be kept available just in case. No objection to the tidying of project space, but there are ways to tidy and organise other than deletion. Personally, I recommend organising through categorisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If there is any possibility of revival . . . ". Yes, these should be the operative words. However if the projects were poorly defined and structured — which was usually the reason for their failure — then any revival is so unlikely that the possibility can be discounted. --Klein zach 11:30, 5 April 2011 (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.