Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Theme songs: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:08, 21 June 2009

Wikipedia:WikiProject Theme songs

No relevant discussion on talk page. Overly narrow scope, very few articles. Tagged as historical since 10/08, not edited at all since then. Mostly long-inactive members. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as harmless wikiproject already marked historical. It dismays me that after repeated attempts to explain that deletion does not save space, nominator continues to make spurious nominations of this nature. –xeno^talk 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again. What benefit do we have in keeping it? It's just another page that serves no purpose, has no historical edits worth saving. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now if someone wants to begin a Wikiproject for theme songs they don't have to start from scratch. And maybe some of the old members will come back into the fold. If we delete it, we don't gain any space, and we lose that possible benefit. Net negative. Also, when you nom something that someone does want to keep around, you tick them off. Again, net negative. Some stuff just doesn't need to be nominated for deletion. –xeno^talk 01:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before weighing the advantages of keeping this page, consider - first - the benefits of deleting it, if any. Since you were the one who proposed to delete the article in the first place, you must have had a feasibly beneficial reason in order to do so. I see none in the nom.--WaltCip (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xeno. StarM 00:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per no valid reason given for deletion, mostly because there isn't one. Keeper | 76 03:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xeno and Keeper76, as well as my above reasoning.--WaltCip (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All it needs is one or two highly interested users to kick-start the project and gear everyone up. The value of having it as a potential reference and a potential tool is far greater than the small amount of space that would be saved through deletion. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xeno. feydey (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary and a waste of time. If these users would spend 10% of the time editing articles as they did pointlessly debating some non existent "theme song" (A theme song for an encyclopedia?), the project would be much better off. Erich Mendacio (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *'''Keep''' All it needs is one or two highly interested users to kick-start the project and gear everyone up.  The value of having it as a potential reference and a potential tool is far greater than the small amount of space that would be saved through deletion. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|user]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|contribs]])''</small></font> 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' per Xeno. [[User:Feydey|feydey]] ([[User talk:Feydey|talk]]) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''.  Unnecessary and a waste of time.  If these users would spend 10% of the time editing articles as they did pointlessly debating some non existent "theme song" (A theme song for an encyclopedia?), the project would be much better off.    [[User:Erich Mendacio|Erich Mendacio]] ([[User talk:Erich Mendacio|talk]]) 05:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)