Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Chenab Valley

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. No consensus to delete. Whether it should be upmerged or kept or whatever is done with WikiProjects can be discussed outside of MfD, perhaps in a few months when enough time has passed to assess whether the project is actually doing whatever it is WikiProjects are supposed to do. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chenab Valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Techie3 (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) JavaHurricane 10:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yes, the creator did round up two other collaborators, but this is still an extremely narrow subject for a WikiProject, which falls completely within the much broader Wikipedia:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir and would thus lead to WP:OVERBANNER issues and likely abandonment. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This project just recently created and yes there are only two to three collaborators in this. But I believe other collaborators who have Chenab Valley as topic of interest will join later. Now, the reason why I made this separate project is only and only huge number notable articles which should be on wikipedia but they aren't. As you can see I am just 4 months old here. I have created number of articles on Places and a biography related to the project. According to my research and as per notability norms, I believe there are more 150 articles on Places, famous notable personalities which are exclusively related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chenab Valley in my mind and maybe the number of articles can increase and I don't think any collaborators from Wikipedia: WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir have contributed any article that much related to Chenab Valley. I am thinking about long lasting project, while I am still learning but I am working according to norms. I have given a lecture to a group of people offline when they misunderstood the Wikipedia, I told them Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and What it is. My mission is that everyone should be reader of wiki and get all the information related to Chenab Valley through wiki. Hope, you don't destroy my mission. Thank You.— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 19:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer any decision for six months. (Wikipedia:There is no deadline.) What the creator is trying to do is to get people to improve articles in this area. This project is one of his/her tools for doing it. Another is to post messages on people's talk pages alerting them to particular problems with articles and asking them to fix them. This initiative was started on 30 June 2020 - that is less than a month ago. Give it another six months before making any decision. Whatever happens it will have improved some articles that would otherwise not have been improved. Maybe UnitedStatesian is right and it will be abandoned; or maybe it will grow. Give it time.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. No need to delete at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We're a volunteer project. Deletion here is essentially opening a jewelry box with a sledgehammer. There really is no need to take this route while the project is being worked on.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not familiar with this particular wikiproject, but couldn't it be made into a taskforce of wikiproject Jammu and Kashmir, or another related wikiproject? That seems to me as a good compromise and also makes the most sense. If this is a viable option I would vote to do it. Ghinga7 (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject India. There are no valid reasons to delete, but new thin WikiProjects only hurt the existing WikiProjects. You'll get more traction by working within a larger WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WP:INDIA. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 10:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a task force of WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir because as noted, it is highly specific. So much so, that a wikiproject for just this might be a bit too heavy. A task force subpage will allow them to have a space for discussion on the subject while at the same time not use yet another WikiProject space. Would also prevent the creation of a fork between WikiProject J&K and this Wikiproject. Regards, Field Marshal (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Update: Didn't realise that User:Ghinga7 has already suggested this. I completely agree with their proposal. Field Marshal (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is way too premature. The project was only started a little over a month ago. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with alacrity into WP:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir - whilst I applaud the noble intent, the reality is that attempts to "encourage interest" in a subject by creating a WikiProject always fail, because it's just not how WikiProjects work. Although a WikiProject might appear to be about articles, it is really about people, and without bottom-up pressure from people wanting to talk about a subject then a WikiProject will die. And ultimately that is bad for the articles - partly because the greatest enthusiast for a subject ends up spending a lot of time on maintaining the WikiProject rather than working on articles, and because people in the parent WikiProject think "we don't need to bother with those articles as the specialist project will be looking after them". So it seems to me that if you want improvements articles on the Chenab Valley then that is less likely to happen with a specialist WikiProject about an area with less than a million people from what I can tell, and where even the more general Wikipedia:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir has only 7 active members. I appreciate the intent of "give it time", but if even a high-profile area like J&K can only attract 7 editors then this is a WP:SNOWBALL. Le Deluge (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have misinterpreted WP:SNOW. That clause applies to when discussions have an overwhelming/unanimous consensus of a sizable number of people and thus there is no need to run through the full timeline of a discussion process. It does not apply here where there is no immediate consensus between keep vs delete.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Dear @Le Deluge:, let me clear, Chenab Valley has 13 lakh population check here as you claimed less than million. Now about Wikipedia: WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir which is not that active and if it has 7 members then WP CV have also 5 members atleast. That is not the thing for comparison. Matter is improvement of articles and activeness. Wikipedia: WikiProject Chenab Valley is started just a month ago by me. I don't want to increase the participants of this project in quantity. I believe in quality, whatever if this projet only 5 members but they are active and improving the articles related to it. If Wikipedia is being improved through a project, whatever its start is simple and small but its participants have dedication to do the work. Regarding the merge in WP Jammu and Kashmir is a bad idea because its members are less active regarding to project. So in conclusion, if this newly created project is meant for improving Wikipedia, lets wait for atleast 6 months. I am thinking of to do some seminars on awareness of wiki in the Chenab Valley and have much more plans (no need to discuss here). Thank You.— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)}

@TheChunky: It doesn't really matter if it's 1 million or 1.3 million - that's still about the size of one of the bigger British counties, and most of them struggle to maintain active WikiProjects despite having 100% native English speakers. I'm just giving advice based on my experience over 10+ years here, that projects based on relatively small geographical areas tend not to work, and projects driven by one person trying to publicise a particular subject, tend not to work. All the stuff you're talking about could just as well happen within the framework of the J&K workgroup - and you'd be able to do more that way because you wouldn't have to spend so much time on the mechanics of setting up and maintaining a WikiProject - which takes a lot more time than people expect, and which directly reduces the time you can spend on articles.Le Deluge (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::::@Le Deluge: With respect to your experience, I still say WP Jammu and Kashmir will not satisfy me. Look at the both projects, how many related articles both have. And which project is working hard. I agree that saving time is more important and projects on small geographical area may not work longer. But as I said I have long term plans. Kindly give some time atleast to work and support me in designing the project correctly. Thank you. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 03:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC) I change my opinion after reading and exploring other WikiProjects, kindly turn this as sub-project of Wikipedia: WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir. The WP:INJK and WP:IND should be the parent for this project and add WP:CVJK at Descendant WikiProjects section of WP:INJK. Thank You. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 20:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir - per Le Deluge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a task force of WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir per Field Marshal Aryan — Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 12:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Eeesh. A group of editors, however small, should have the privilege of establishing a WikiProject, however narrow, to further articles within its scope. "Narrow projects always fail" is an illegitimate reason to torpedo this, and no one who has advocated merging this into an existing project has advanced any benefits for doing so. Ravenswing 04:56, 29 August 2020 (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.