Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:34, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
U.S. Southern Collaboration of the Week[edit]
This has been inactive for months now, last modified Nov. 17. Even the notice board it is supposed to correspond to is inactive. I checked the "current" collaboration, Delmarva Peninsula, and it has been edited hardly at all in the last month. I don't know exacly if this is the right page to list this, but no others seem to fit. It is also clogging the Template:COTWs which is long and ugly. I propose this page be deleted.--Dmcdevit 05:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It can and will be revived at a later date when there is more interest. As for now we have a ready-made page for when that happens. Neutralitytalk 06:09, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Sorry, we're a bit slower with things down here. We'll get it going soon. Gamaliel 06:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Defunct projects can (and will) be revived at a later date. I know the WikiMagic projec will. Why delete the work that's been done before? Mgm|(talk) 12:26, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I hope I didn't sound mean, I posted a question on the talk page a while back and no one responded, so I seriously thought there was no one really interested. I am glad this posting has elicited a positive response. Maybe we sould just remove it from the template and it would be a simple task of adding it once you've gathered workers together?--Dmcdevit 17:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (also on Dmcdevit's talk page) Removing defunct or inactive COTWs from the template makes it harder for the projects to gain an audience. Why not make a seperate template or category for inactive COTWs so the main template can be cleaned up a bit without putting the projects at a disadvantage? Mgm|(talk) 10:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- That's fine with me, I didn't think about the publicity aspect. I guess I thought each of the regional or category COTW started out as a notice board or WikiProject, and garnered their support from within, not from outsiders, am I wrong? (I admit I've only been involved with the main COTW, AID, and CSB)--Dmcdevit 16:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (also on Dmcdevit's talk page) Removing defunct or inactive COTWs from the template makes it harder for the projects to gain an audience. Why not make a seperate template or category for inactive COTWs so the main template can be cleaned up a bit without putting the projects at a disadvantage? Mgm|(talk) 10:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I hope I didn't sound mean, I posted a question on the talk page a while back and no one responded, so I seriously thought there was no one really interested. I am glad this posting has elicited a positive response. Maybe we sould just remove it from the template and it would be a simple task of adding it once you've gathered workers together?--Dmcdevit 17:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not sure wikipedia has benefitted or will benefit from this page. Dmn / Դմն 21:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- For your information, we have built up three articles, one relating to history, one on cuisine, and one on The Miami Herald. Research before making statements like that. Mike H 05:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Mike H 05:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. JCarriker 09:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) Though we really should nominate one of the three articles for featured status. (Was that not our goal?) Most Wikiprojects and boards go through lulls in activity, anyway. -JCarriker 09:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Fawcett5 22:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.