Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

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: delete. ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 22:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject H. P. Lovecraft[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject H. P. Lovecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The one writer Portal:H. P. Lovecraft is far too narrow topic for a portal. He is not a Shakespeare, whose works have been studied for centuries and thus is a v broad topic with a lot of active editors.

The broader project Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction is tagged as "semi-active", so there is no need split out this topic into a sub-portal.

There is no demonstrated need or demand for this portal. It appears to have been created by Auric as some sort of WP:POINTy response to my comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:H. P. Lovecraft (4th nomination); see this diff[1]

Wikipedia is awash with abandoned WikiProjects. Creating yet another one should be done only it meets a proven need and has a decently long list of interested participants. But WikiProject should never be created just to make as sarcastic comment on an MFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My creation of this Wikiproject was not created out of anything like that. Please WP:AGF. I checked the guidelines and don't believe this Project has too narrow a focus. --Auric talk 10:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-speedily delete I don't think this falls under any of the criteria for speedy deletion, but I still think it should be deleted per the nom as fancruft (or fancraft, if you will ;)). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This WP is intended to cover anything related to Lovecraft; i.e. His family, his friends, where he lived; and his works. I considered starting a Mythos WP, but just focusing on his works would be too narrow a scope.--Auric talk 10:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now, but open to reconsideration: While I agree with most of BrownHairedGirl's sentiments, I wouldn't say outright deletion is quite the answer yet. I would instead recommend merging it into related WikiProjects, such as maybe WikiProject Authors/G-N and/or WikiProject Horror. I know we may have to consider the role WikiProjects will ultimately play during this ongoing mass deletion of portals, but I think we could perhaps consider the possibility of WikiProjects replacing narrow-scope portals (though that's a discussion for somewhere else). ToThAc (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:ToThAc, WP:PRJCRE says "A WikiProject is the people, not the articles or the pages that help the people work together, so this is the most important step. You must find people who want to work together on the project with you."
I see no evidence that this has happened here. A one-person WikiProject is just a set of pointless pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral at this time. This looks like two editors are both trying to make a point. I don't see the case for a WikiProject, but I don't think that this one has been given a chance to attract members, and it looks like a symbolic shedding of (bad) blood on both parts. In general, replacing low-use portals with WikiProjects is a good idea. WikiProjects, unlike portals, really are a way to get better article coverage. I don't see a good case for creating this portal or for deleting this portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete regardless of the intent behind creating it, this portal is too narrow in scope anyway. There isn't enough content to sustain one. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this marked-as-draft project for now, to give the creator more than one day to attract other interested editors. I am surprised that so many of the !voters above refer to this as a "portal" (it is not), which makes me suspicious that in their good-faith efforts to !vote on many MfD's quickly they did not read this nomination carefully. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian: Five days after the "project" was created, Auric is still the only listed participant.
If an editor wants to create a portalproject, why not seek out other interested editors before creating it? Wikipedia is awash with inactive or defunct WikiProjects, and keeping this one on the remote chance that it might attract interest gives a high probability that it will be just another of the inactive projects whose banners clutter article talk pages.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think 5 days is a harshly short time to expect collaboration to materialize, and 1 day (the time between creation and this MfD) is especially harsh. While I agree seeking out other editors before project (n.b.: not "portal", as you incorrectly wrote) creation is a better process, we should not punish good-faith editors who naively followed a different sequence by hastily deleting their work. Consensus is that the inactive project banners are not clutter (esp. since multiple banners trigger autocollapse), but if this project turns out to be stillborn after an appropriate amount of time passes, you could always propose this project's template be deleted also, or seek different general consensus related to how we handle talkpage banners for inactive projects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian, the creator has a responsibility to do the recruitment before creation. Transferring that burden onto others is perverse reversal of burden, which makes unnecessary work for other editors who are thereby asked to spend an indefinite amount of time watching for signs of life on a page with minimal chance of success.
Deletion is not "punishment". It is simply housekeeping to maintain sanity in project space. The most efficient solution is to delete it now, and to allow Auric to open a DRV if they have new evidence in the form of interested participants.
I note with sadness, but with zero surprise, that after five days, Auric hasn't even mentioned the "project"'s creation at Talk:H. P. Lovecraft, so I see no reason to believe that there is any genuine intent to recruit.
It is also misleading to compare the project banners of a stillborn project with one which was active then faded away. The banners of a defunct project record actual activity, but those of a driveby creation are just graffiti. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting the recruitment burden be transferred to others, only that this one editor be given more time to perform it, as has been the standard practice in the past. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be more persuasive if there was any evidence at all that the creator had even started trying recruitment. But so far there's been not a single post about the project on any usertalk or wptalk page.
So it looks like any recruitment will fall to other editors. Alternatively, they take on the burden of monitoring the project for some unspecified time, before having the hassle of MFDing it all over again. Whether Auric was being POINTy or just reckless, the answer should be "Not this way. Come back if and when you've done your homework successfully". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't realized that there was a deadline to recruit. I've just been posting recruiting messages on the talk pages of some other WPs that might have interested members. --Auric talk 09:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The project still has has no members other than its creator, whose efforts to attract members consist of:
This "project" is going nowhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: There is support for turning it into a task force, which is not the same as zero support.--Auric talk 10:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-correction. @Auric there are suggestions that a task force might be more appropriate. But a task force also requires participants, and there are still precisely zero editors apart from Auric interested in being members of a Lovecraft task force. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to join the taskforce if it is made.★Trekker (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete with no prejudice against re-creation if a group of editors materializes. Right now, that isn't happening as required by WP:PRJCRE. We don't need more empty WikiProjects cluttering up article talk pages. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2019 (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.


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_H._P._Lovecraft