Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Quest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. – ClockworkSoul 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Quest

This is an subproject of the Video game Project that has been tagged as inactive since November last year. The project was only active for approximately nine months, with no subpages generated.
See also discussion on VG Project talk page and inactive VG projects cleanup page for details. Gazimoff WriteRead 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete or Redirect: Though the scope of the topic is much greater than the recently deleted TimeSplitters Project (admittedly not by much), the inactivity certainly doesn't warrant the project staying as is. And keeping an inactive project like this around can be confusing for newcomers looking to edit video game articles. The only alternative I can suggest would be to redirect it to the VG Project in the off chance interest in the topic increases somewhere down the line. Even then, it would work better as a task force than a full project. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Keep. Do we delete inactive WikiProjects? Make it a subpage of VG Project, but do not delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Even if the scope of the project only encompasses 30 articles? The reason this was brought to MfD is because the project had not really accomplished anything and there was little to no interest in collaboration on the DQ articles. Would a redirect work instead? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
      • If it only encompasses 30 articles, then its not a server space issue, which it is not anyway. I oppose deletion of the records of activities and failed activities. Archiving is preferable, but a redirect would be fine, if you prefer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, I'm all for a redirect. Though honestly, I wouldn't really oppose deletion. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Keep/redirect, etc. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to WP:WikiProject Video games, or Delete and history-merge into the same page (I'm more for redirecting, however). --Izno (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment- How about demoting project into task force and redirect there. If it remains inactive, then the task force might as well be deleted. Although I have a feeling that it will remain inactive, so like Guyinblack25 I too don't oppose deletion. I just like to consider the options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by .:Alex:. (talk • contribs) 04:17, May 11, 2008
  • Redirect. Per comments above.Renee (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I guess a little more background info might be needed. Because there are so many inactive video game subprojects, we're trying to do some clean up to consolidate resources and help new members not get lost. Some other inactive Projects were switched to task forces, but they still had some editors interested in working on the articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Warcraft and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/StarCraft). There are already several such task forces, some of which may also be inactive. Deletion was brought up because this project does not have any interest from editors. Though redirecting to the main VG Project page will leave it open to future interest. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
    • Comment - While redirects are cheap, would a delete summary of "See 'this' page" work (is that allowed?)? --Izno (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirect per other comments Randomran (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect I'm not sure if this project is interesting enough to leave it there and mark it as "historical" --Enric Naval (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. If this ever gets back together, we can fix it. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 13:40, 15 May 2008 (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.