Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Gridiron in Australia

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 tag historical. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An inactive project with a grand total of two articles, no active participants, which is a general drain on resources. Five Years 14:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of the three participants - looks like only one recently editing in general - surely you need to communicate with the recent editing one to see if he wants to resurect interest or not? seems only fair to leave messages at all three participants talk first even if they haven edited for 6 months - just the protocol seems worth it. SatuSuro 14:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project participants have been notified. Moondyne 01:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As the nominator says, this is a drain on resources and the project does appear to be inactive. Two articles is hardly justification for a Wikiproject. Moondyne 01:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree absolutely that this is a silly WikiProject. This is far too small and obscure a topic to sustain a WikiProject, and it was inevitable that it would become inactive. But the issue to be discussed here is whether the pages associated with this Wikiproject should be deleted. Personally I would be inclined to userfy to User:Breno/Gridiron in Australia, rather than delete. Hesperian 02:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there was a discussion some time ago Talk:Gridiron_Australia#Mergers regarding notability of some of the teams and resulting in a merge. But this discussion is about the project, not the article/s. Moondyne 02:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Misunderstood, I support userfying. Moondyne 03:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case, you've !voted twice, and must go directly to jail without passing go. Hesperian 03:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because its only a !vote, I can !vote as many times as I like if I choose to.  ;) Moondyne 06:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would support userification per Hesperian's suggestion. If the user wants a space to co-ordinate his work and that of others that may wish to help from time to time, then I see nothing wrong with that being kept in his user space. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Archive or userfy. The "drain" on resources is not worth the time thinking about it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag as inactive or userify. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag as {{historical}}. — Athaenara ✉ 06:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag - whichever way to go - inactive/userfy -SatuSuro 06:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy The drain on resources argument is a stupid one, it would consume far more resources to 'delete' it than keep it and it is not actually deleted it is just only visible to admins, mean no actual resources would be available for use. -- maelgwn - talk 08:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag as historical as unviable project A wikiproject for two articles is ludicruous, looking at this thread it seems there were more articles, but they were all merged for lack of notability, which means that the project is doomed from the start unless someone finds notability for the article. Looking at this diff, it appears that the merger killed the project. I suggest putting a notice to go instead to the parent project Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian sports --Enric Naval (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2008 (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.