Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spotlight

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 debate was Keep, but tag inactive. Xoloz (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Spotlight

Seems to be inactive and deprecated when compared to WP:ACID. This project has once worked well but now there is almost no-one actively contributing via this project. I suggest Delete or Tag as Historical.~Iceshark7 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, its main members/creators seem to have gone on to other things (Veropedia). I agree with tagging as historical. Redrocketboy 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as historical; derelict, but seems to be a stepping stone towards better things. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Tag - Unfortunately most members aren't around anymore (really including myself - I've been insanely busy) - and that just takes away from it. I will say, though, that I think that the concept of Spotlight is really something that can be worked off of --danielfolsom 03:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Tag Too successful to delete, also is a small bit o' WikiPistory worth preserving.--12 Noon 08:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. No need to tag as historical in my opinion. Just leave it marked as inactive. The project can very well be reactivated if there is interest. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Tag historical. If there's confirmation that it's not likely to become active again, that's probably the best course. Deletion of a former productive project is typically not done. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as inactive: There's discussions on getting the project back up and running, a few of us have been discussing doing some work over Christmas when a lot of us are insanely unbusy. It's just the time of year for people to be busy, end of semester exams and such. Let's see how we get on over Christmas and we'll take it from there. Nick (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I might mention that the user has listed that he is out of the country until Dec 14, could we relist if necessary to give him a chance to respond? uninvolved user Mbisanz (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I assume you mean User:J Milburn, however he also states he works on Spotlight "when it's active". The consensus above seems to be leaning to mark as historical, so I doubt it will be deleted; if if is merely marked as historical, anyone can re-start it and remove the tag, so I think we are safe.--12 Noon ^2¢ 18:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm back now, but I have no IRC access until I get around to getting a new computer (I currently use computers in my college or belonging to other members of my family) and so will be unable to participate in Spotlight anyway, for the time being. I agree with tagging as inactive, but disagree with deletion, as this is a distinct project that has done good work, and it would be good to get it started again at some point. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as inactive It's a good concept, and it seems that several of the users are just busy and so cannot participate in Spotlight. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 19:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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.