Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Crowded House

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. Inactivity alone is not sufficient for deletion of a WikiProject. Ruslik_Zero 16:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project alive in 2007-2008. Once had 13 members. No activity for 3 years. No substantial discussions. --Kleinzach 06:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Put it out of its misery --UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, nonstarter Wikiproject with no activity whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. None of the above reasons are good reasons to delete. The page is already properly tagged inactive. There is no misery there. Project was not a non-starter, there was activity. More importantly, there is potential for activity. There are many associated articles that might be improved with new drive, new drive that is far less likely if the WikiProject structure is tossed. What's going on here, I guess, is that a nationally popular band had some revival, spurring this project, but it petered out. Deleting these things therefore amplifies a bias towards current popularly. As the encyclopedia works best taking a historical, ideally timeless approach, this bias is the opposite of what we want. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Related articles are far more likely to be developed by the Rock and Australian Music projects, which have greater critical mass and more accessibility. --Kleinzach 08:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree with that. I have altered the inactive tag to point more usefully to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian music. I see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian music references Wikipedia:WikiProject Crowded House. I have edited Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Related WikiProjects so that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_music shows Wikipedia:WikiProject Crowded House qualified as "inactive". I think inactive but worthwhile WikiProject should be organised, not deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This page is tagged as historical, so I see no reason to delete it. If editors were interested, in the future, in resurrecting this project, they would have to start from scratch if it were deleted. Per SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), I believe the benefits of keeping this page tagged as historical outweigh any downsides. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The talk page of this WikiProject has discussions that are worth keeping. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crowded House#Let's get back on board:

  I've been lazy/on holidays in the last few weeks, but I'm getting back into getting this WikiProject going. I really want us to get the Crowded House and Split Enz pages both up to FA status. As a start, here's my suggested timeline and action plan:
  
  ...

  And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crowded House#Crowded House - GA! but FA...?:

  We have our first WP:GA everybody! Check it out: Crowded House. Thanks to everybody who participated, but we need double the effort with getting it up to FA, but that can wait till after we've done Split Enz to GA. --linca^linca 13:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  Cunard (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No substantive activity. FloydRule (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Because there was once substantive activity, the history ought to be preserved. That the WikiProject is inactive now is no reason to delete useful history. Cunard (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, marked historical, inactivity is not reason to delete in case anyone wants to come along and pick it up. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:38, 26 February 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.