Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Calendars

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 keep: there is a clear consensus against deletion, and no consensus for userfication. John254 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Calendars

Project has only one listed member, its creator, who is being notified of this discussion. Project's last real activity was in March; founder, who is also only member, has been inactive since July. Project is also basically redundant to several other existing projects related to time, and has no particular content which indicates that it merits being kept on that basis. John Carter 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think theres a need to delete wikiprojects so that they can become active at a later date. For now, just mark it as inactive. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy the following (and hopefully fixing the redirect links) - since it's currently a project of a single editor. - jc37 21:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good idea. We can userfy or keep. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 21:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Creator has been inactive since July, as previously noted, so it is currently a project of no active editor. Also, several projects, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Years and Wikipedia:WikiProject Time, cover basically the same scope. John Carter 21:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The polls show that more than one editor was active in the concept. However, I think the scope of the WikiProject had more to do with usage/upkeep of the Wikicalendar and its variations. See also Image:Wikicalendar in Firefox.jpg. Hence userfication. - jc37 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ - I do see John's point, but July wasn't that long ago, if the editor remains inactive we can consider deletion of the user space some day if warranted.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute now: On further review there are at least 10 editors involved in this project, it's just that only one has bothered to post his or her name on the Project page and this article has been twice tagged as {{inactive}} and twice the tag has been removed within days. This time it wasn't tagged until after it was nominated. Remember, just because nobody is making edits to the Project page doesn't mean the Project isn't actually active. There is also significant discussion on the talk page, if truly permanently inactive this project might be a candidate for {{historical}} not deletion. I might consider userfication if the {{inactive}} tag had been there more than just one day. I must change my vote to Keep.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was once a large, collaborative project, but has recently diminished a bit. I have been very busy and have not had time to maintain or advertise the project. Many people contribute, although only I have added my name to the "Members" list, and I only did that after being notified that the project would be shut down if nobody puts their name down as a "Member".

The purpose Wikiproject Calendars is to promote and maintain all the "Calendars of..." pages. This is a useful project. Our goal is driven by the belief that the awareness of the world's rich variety of holidays will gain a better appreciation of other cultures --Munchkinguy 01:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Userfy - There's been one edit to the talk page this year. Lara Love 02:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but a project may be "active" without having an active discussion. But, if there is only one active participant (setting aside "membership"), then maybe it should be userfied. Keep or Userfy, just as long as it's not deleted.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 23 September 2007 (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.