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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Artemis program[edit]

Wikipedia:Artemis program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

This is a "fake" Wikipedia Project that was created by the editor without bothering to first obtain approval from the WP:COUNCIL. See the discussion at User_talk:Starship_24#Artemis_program_pages The table of "Successes" is almost entirely made up out of whole cloth, with links to this fake project added after changes in rating were made, or where the changes in rating were made by the editor themselves to boost the "success" rate. The "project" has only a single participant beyond the editor who created it, each with interestingly similar usernames. Banks Irk (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as the creator. I'll respond to each sentence one at a time. First, it is not fake. It is real and has multiple partipicants. It also has around 20 successes and only 1 failure. As to not having approval from the WikiProject Council, I do realize that was wrong. I had figured it was fine after seeing the Constellation program. In fact, the Artemis program was a revival of that with lowered abmitions and had slightly different goals. Being that it has been doing quite well, it seems like it would be Beurocratic nonsense to delete it just because it should have been approved by the WikiProject Council. Second, the table of success is not a fake or nonsense as you appear to be suggesting. As to the complaint that I have added the template to article that were already improved, what happened there was that I realized a few days ago that pages that the Artemis program had improved never got the Artemis program template added to them, so I went ahead and added them at that point. They were already improved by the Artemis program but never tagged. Yes, sometimes members of the project did make the rating changes themselves. An article that one had to scroll to read and has 5 long paragraphs is not a stub, I don't need someone else to tell me that. Asking for another opinion is wasting more peoples time. Also, assesing the chosen article is part of the goal and the first thing that we do (even before we make changes). If it already at that quality then we have completed our job on that article (which in that case was just reassesment). We are not trying to artifically boost the success rate. Third, the project does not have many participants. I'll agree with you on that one. But no project starts out with 100 participants, does it? They all start somewhere. More is definetly better, but it is useful even at it's current level. As to the second part of your sentence, are you suggesting that we (Me and StarshipSLS) are Sockpuppets? Beyond a similar username and interest in spaceflight topics, what evidence do you have? If you a serious, you may ask for an investigation. In reality, I think that the reason that @StarshipSLS (the other participant) joined the Artemis program was because it is a revival attempt of the Constellation program, which he was a part of. @Banks Irk Starship 24 (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Convert to Taskforce/Working Group Niche subjects are usually best handled by taskforces rather than standalone projects. In practice that means moving to a subpage of WP:SPF and either redirecting or merging any assessment templates. In sum, I don't see a PAG based reason to delete the page, nor is it so disconnected from the usual purpose of WikiProjects as to warrant userfication, but it's too narrowly focused for a standalone. The decision on whether the template should be merged to retain independant importance assessments or just redirected can be handled at WT:SPACEFLIGHT with a follow-up TPER if needed. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that isnt something like SpaceX which focuses on a specific topic. This focuses on getting high importance spaceflight articles to a higher quality. Not sure if that is great for a taskforce @74.73.224.126 Starship 24 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In the end primary WikiProject vs Taskforce doesn't matter all that much for the purposes of fostering collaboration and article improvement, that is one of the reasons my !vote is weak, as a dedicated discussion page is available either way.

  If you want links from related article talk pages to the taskforce an additional working group can be added to Template:WikiProject Spaceflight and the templates merged, which will keep the internal discussion page easy to find for casual editors. However, I feel that decision on whether to do that is best conducted at WT:SPACEFLIGHT.

  Also please review WP:PINGIP 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I accept that. I personally feel that is better as isnt a wikiproject for a sub-subject of spaceflight (ex.SpaceX) it is more a "lets find some important articles and improve and asses them" Starship 24 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I write this the page states The goal of the Artemis Program is to asses and improve important spaceflight related articles (emphasis added) which indicates the scope is a subset of WP:SPF.

  Granted, many strict subsets are nonetheless independent projects and not just those with large article bases, though in many cases this is only for legacy reasons. Ultimately it's a judgement call on which reasonable minds may differ, and I respect that you've come to a different conclusion than I have. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy subject to going through a WP:COUNCIL process. WikiProjects are for collaboration and require collaboration, and the Council step shouldn’t be skipped. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Seems a bit like beuracratic nonsense in this case however. The program:

  1.Already exists

  2.Has multiple participants

  3.Has many success

  @SmokeyJoe Starship 24 (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Complete nonsense. (1)It exists only because you created it out of order;(2) It has ONE participant beyond you, not multiple participants; (3) Its "successes" are 100% manufactured by self-promotion by your own admission, not any collaborative effort. This a completely sham, fake "project" that would never be approved through required WP: Council process. Banks Irk (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And, you've now been blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of a banned user Special:BlockList/User:Starship_24, which in and of itself is grounds for deletion. Banks Irk (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete, subject to the user being unblocked, at which point they can request userfication subject to it being put through WP:COUNCIL. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete quasi-wikiproject started out of process with dubious aims while evading a block. —Alalch E. 09:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense project by block evading user. Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 23:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not proposed (let alone approved) at WP:COUNCIL; only two participants, of which Starship 24 is now indef-blocked (and globally locked) as a sock, and StarshipSLS hasn't contributed to anything in almost four months. The project seems limited in scope; most of the articles listed at History and plans are not specific to the actual Artemis program but are of a more general nature, well within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight. Some - such as List of Vega launches - seem to be only tangentially related to Artemis. Some of the claimed "successes" are clearly false - for example, Able (rocket stage) is shown as a "success" for being raised from stub-class to start-class - but all that has happened to the article since July 2019 is a small amount of routine maintenance by bots; this regrading, whilst justifiable in general terms, is not sufficient for a WikiProject to claim a success in improving the article.
  This could have been suggested as a taskforce of WikiProject Spaceflight (and again, I cannot find any evidence that it was) where I am sure that advice and assistance could have been obtained, although I am not sure that an actual taskforce would have been sanctioned - there are no taskforces (let alone full WikiProjects) for significant space programs of the past, such as Apollo, Gemini, Mercury or Space Shuttle. Finally - if kept, this should be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis program. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2023 (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.