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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Parenting[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Parenting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:WikiProject Parenting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In principle, this is a great idea for a WikiProject. Most adult humans devote a lot of their lives to parenting. It is highly significant in every culture, and there is a vast range of reliable sources. Mountains of encyclopedic work to be done here, esp since WP:WikiProject Children is a redlink. The systemic bias here is glaring.
However, a project isn't a page; it's a process of collaboration between editors. But in the 7 weeks since this page was created, it has been edited only by its creator @Mvolz and its talk page is still a redlink. There are no links to it from any userpages other than the creator's, and the only WikiProject links to it are Mvolz's mentions of it on technical pages. In short, there is no collaboration here, and no sign of any effort to build it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It sounds like a job for Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. To my surprise, they are not inactive. I notified their talk page. I’m wondering whether WP:WikiProject Council approve should be mandatory. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WikiProject Council page doesn't have much discussion about, well, anything really, but in particular for new WikiProject proposals, it usually simply says what BrownHairedGirl said: projects are just a place for people interested in a common topic to discuss and co-ordinate, so go find some interested people. isaacl (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, there are many much older WikiProject pages out there that are essentially the product of one person having a creative spurt. Perhaps notices can be placed on the talk pages for some related WikiProjects, asking for any interested participants? isaacl (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Why nominate this WiiProject as opposed to any of the many other stillborn WikiProjects? Are we following Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Dealing_with_inactive_WikiProjects Why not tag (Template:WikiProject status) inactive or defunct? Is a stillborn WikiProject status parameter wanted? It has long been noted that any editor can start a WikiProject on anything, a bit too easily. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'mon @SmokeyJoe, you been around long enough to know that I nominated this page because I stumbled across it (in this case via the redlinked cats created by its template). It isn't defunct; it was never funct. I do agree that all WikiProject creations should require prior approval by the WikiProject Council. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I don’t mean to play dumb or anything, but just asking dumb questions. It’s kind of a random stillborn, far from the worst we’ve seen, possibly you found it because it is new? I think I usually support deletion of stillborn WikiProject, and support userfication if the author objects. User:TenPoundHammer used to nominate a lot of stillborn WikiProjects. I support keeping, archived or tagged inactive, WikiProjects that has actual talk page coordination discussion. We agree on limiting WikiProject creation to approval through their currently optional process. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Via redlinked categories, of course! —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete amd here is why. Non-functional wikiprojects lead to a lot of wasted effort. People categorize pages to them. People expect the Wikiproject to do something about pages. It's a big waste of time. If no one needs the place to collaberate shut it down and keep the Wikiproject off the lists so it is easier to find the live wikiprojects. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid reasons for deletion. If WikiProjects are to be more restricted, and subject to vetting (which may be a good idea), that’s a policy discussion that needs to happen before deleting random innocuous new WikiProjects. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: are you really saying that "does not function as a WikiProject and has never functioned as a WikiProject" is not a valid reason to delete? Seriously? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    • Not If, as the author claims, it is yet to be advertised. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seven weeks? Come on. Can people stop punishing people who don't work to their timeline? You aren't a teacher and there is no due date here. If you want to delete a project after only seven weeks of inactivity, you're going to need a better reason.Egaoblai (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes - perhaps Marielle is busy, um, being a parent? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As creator, relevant information

@SmokeyJoe:, @BrownHairedGirl:, @Legacypac:, @Isaacl:

As creator, relevant information:

I had created this proposal as well Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Parenting after creation and haven't received input there, but has more meta information about the project. Ideally I should have done this before creating but I hadn't come across it until I had started working on developing Wikipedia:WikiProject Parenting.

I have not advertised the project at all because I was dealing with technical difficulties. The intent was to set it up with Wikipedia:WikiProject X and I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_X/Pilots but there hasn't been any involvement from WikiProject X yet. I got someone with interface rights to approve some required interface code for the join page, but I believe there is some additional configuration needed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Parenting/Members to work properly, namely enabling User:Reports_bot to work on it (I've just checked Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_X and I see now someone replied to my comment about documentation, which is helpful, but also I notice below they apparently they do not currently recommend enabling new Wikiprojects with WikiProject X and advise waiting until some updates are made.) At any rate, I'd argue the project isn't stillborn but rather still gestating. When I created it I hadn't realised that its creation would be stalled by technical difficulties. But, thank you prompting me to go and re-investigate this.

Here are some options I'd prefer to deletion:

• Have the page moved into my userspace pending input on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Parenting, or
• Fix the page so that it's not reliant on WikiProject X templates and then advertise it, or
• Ask User:harej to enable it (as per the WikiProject X documentation that I have just seen) and then advertise it.

Mvolz (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can add a doc page when I get back from work - got to go out in 5 mins time. I shall have a question or two to ask about the template as it stands, there are some unusual features. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mvolz: the "proposal" was pointless when you had already created a fait accompli. That is back-to-front.

So the best solution is to move it to your userspace . You can then advertise Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Parenting and see if a consensus develops there to create the project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is OK to let the page be developed in project space while it seeks out participants; this is typical for how most WikiProjects are initiated. isaacl (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: there are basically 2 ways to proceed. a) userify now, then move back to userspace if there is consensus at the WPcouncil to create; b) keep in proj space, then have another mfd if the council decides against. Why add the extra process in option b, when we already have an open discussion at the council? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no council per se; there's just people who show up and comment, and recent history shows very few of those. For better or worse, most WikiProjects are created directly in project space as they ramp up, so personally I think this page should be afforded that opportunity as well. isaacl (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a better idea to keep it where it is. I can't see any benefit to userfying it Egaoblai (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "in the 7 weeks since this page was created"... Many wikiprojects show little sign of collaboration yet exist for years. There is no reason to delete this one over any other stagnant wikiproject (a problem, if we even consider it a problem, that the majority of wikiprojects might suffer from). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the page creator's (Mvolz) plans to improve the page, as stated above by the user. There is no deadline for the page to be updated. The WikiProject Council does not appear to be active, so going there to make requests to create projects is essentially dysfunctional. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per North America, Godsy and Egaoblai. Jusdafax (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2018 (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.