Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 keep. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inappropriate WikiProject. From Wikipedia:WikiProject: A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific family of information within Wikipedia. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing. Wikiprojects should not be forums for advocacy, nor petitions. They are for writing articles and managing the encyclopaedia content. Advocacy can easily be carried out in userspace, if it must be carried out. This is an abuse of the project namespace. [[Sam Korn]] 22:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I do agree with their opinions about ads on Wikipedia, the Project namespace isn't the place for this. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not in a project "namespace". It is in the Wikipedia namespace and it is not associated with any WikiProject categories. The only argument is that there would be some confusion about the most frequent meaning of the term "WikiProject", but the group still considers itself a type of project. Because of the controversial and spontaneous organization of this group, it should get some slack in terms of its title. Because of the way many decisions on Wikipedia are implemented, the Wikipedia namespace needs to be reserved for limited user activism regarding Wikimedia board decisions. This is the larger issue here, and considering this group's popularity, I don't think the question of whether this is appropriate has a clear-cut response. Tfine80 18:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Project namespace == Wikipedia namespace. Sorry for the ambiguity. It makes more sense when you're a frequent user of Kate's Tool, which of course, I am not... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. To remove itself of its WikiProject title, an abuse of that title, but can be kept in the Wikipedia namespace. See Wikipedia:Category math feature. I would not like to see advertising but that is still a means to an end to build an encyclopaedia. -- Zondor 03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point. Meta seems to be the traditional home for such things. Any objection to moving it there? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree to that. Reyk 07:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move somewhere else. Reyk 06:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to make clear that it is not a WikiProject. Stifle 16:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Sam Korn's request for move target, I recommend this is moved to userspace or meta. Stifle 17:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia:No ads and mark {{Proposed}}. This is really a policy proposal, not a WikiProject. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't what we think of as policy. It's meta-policy, not something the editors can decide on. This page is advocacy, not something we should make "official" as it were. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move it somewhere else. This is not a WikiProject. --Optichan 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move. Not a WikiProject. WikiFanatic 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I make the point that move votes alone really aren't useful. Where are you moving them to? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This project has existed for months and has been very popular with around 100 members. Moving it would have a political appearance. The project also works to remove advertisements from within Wikipedia articles, making it as valid as any other. The proposed Answers.com deal and the Toolbar link which was scheduled to begin at the beginning of the year may have been deterred by the arguments of those involved in this project. If it were deleted or moved, it would be a major scandal on Wikipedia. Also, look through the history and the members list and you will see participation by many high-ranking admins. Are you accusing them of being ignorant of what is or is not a Wikiproject? Also, it is naive to describe this project as policy discussion. This project was created as a user backlash after a key turning point in Wikipedia's history, and the project was linked by Slashdot and written about in the press. It serves a different function than policy discussion because the Answers.com deal was presented as a fait accompli. Users felt they had no voice (the foundation was not responding sufficiently to concerns expressed on the answers.com deal announcement page) and this was their only recourse. Tfine80 23:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WikiProject as it stands is largely about advertisements surrounding the encyclopaedic content rather than within the articles. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not also takes care of advertisements within the encyclopaedic content. -- Zondor 01:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or #REDIRECT out of wikiproject subspace. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep or redirect Ardenn 17:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, how about Wikipedia:Wikipedians against advertisements —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-10 00:32Z
• Keep It's crucial that this page not be deleted it provides critical opposition to the Answers.com deal and as stated early it has high ranking admins along with other wikipedians which proudly stand defiant to Wikipedia's possible greed and ambition. Patman2648 16:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Tfine80. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 00:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have no objection to renaming it from "WikiProject" to some other name, if indeed the scope of WikiProjects as such should be devoted to article space, but there ought to be room for discussing Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia in one form or another. --Delirium 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tfine80 makes some very good points, and to them I will add my own. I not only am against advertising on wikipedia in any form, but I believe this project helps to uphold the open, communal, unbiased, and free nature of wikipedia on many fronts. The truth is that sometimes aditors anon or other place advertisements within articles and this project aims to keep them down. This deserves wikipedia namespace and as it stands project namespace is appropriate. Solidusspriggan 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a free source of reliable information created and maintained freely by editors. Gnangarra 01:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - It'd be really nice to keep, but I don't know if it really belongs under WikiProject. Move it to the Wikipedia space, or perhaps a user space. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - The issue at hand is whether the No Ads thing deserves the title of WikiProject. It does not meet the criteria for that title. --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 01:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If this project concerning what occurs on Wikipedia isn't for the Wikipedia namespace, what is? --Oldak Quill 01:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This project was made partly in response to a WikiPanic due to some miscommunication between the Wikimedia Board and the community. Jimbo has made it pretty clear that there aren't going to be ads here. I trust him on this. Besides, this isn't a WikiProject, and the Project namespace isn't for advocacy, as Sam Kron said above. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 01:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. talk to +MATIA 01:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. *drew 01:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Rogue 9 01:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something other than "WikiProject." EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Still a valid issue. However, I think there definitely should be a proposed guideline/policy to the point of Wikipedia should be completely free of advertising. --maru (talk) contribs 03:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly under another name, maybe not a Wikiproject, but a user category. --Driken 04:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move. Wikipedia doesn't need ads, and while I agree with its goal, the WikiProject URL may be a bit confounding. Move, if anything remotely near delete. Эйрон Кинни 04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My talk page was spammed by people trying to campaign for "keep" votes so I have chosen to spite them in order to rid the technique from Wikipedia forever. — Phil Welch 04:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The irony... -- Zondor 07:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move it elsewhere and redirect. It's a good project, but it's definitely not a WikiProject. ♠ SG →Talk 08:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep keep on wikipedia, i.e do not move to meta or user space, however I am not against removeing wikiproject from the title.--JK the unwise 08:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep keep the project. helohe (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename without "WikiProject". --Valmi ✒ 10:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and change Wikiproject rules in regards to Metapedian issues. I agree, this was created during a wikipanic, which I was a part of and I regret now, but it's irrelevant if it's a panic or not: we can either have these groups out in the open and with a suggested structure so they can civilly show their views to the community as a large, or we can have disorganized mobs spring up around these issues(and there's going to be alot more), and we'll have alot of yelling and screaming at each other until there are mass departures from the project as a whole. Karmafist 11:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move, preferably to meta:. Alphax ^τεχ 11:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. —Nightstallion (?) 11:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Besednjak 12:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename. At least keep or rename the project so that Wikipedians like me who are against advertising can still have a say or stand in allowing advertisments or not.Gunman47 12:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this Wikiproject is about editing pages - it is about keeping a watch over pages (such as Answers.com) that its members suspect could otherwise be corrupted/POV edited as a result of various commercial deals the Wikimedia Foundation has signed up to Cynical 12:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it for SURE and move to m:meta as this project is not simply about english wikipedia, its about all languages and all foundation operated projects. Domo Arigato in advance. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's doublespeak to call this an "abuse" of the Wikipedia: namespace. Project namespace is about the project, eh? Support Quarl's renaming concept. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to meta namespace, per above. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move It's a project; it's on wikipedia. Nothing wrong with the name, but I don't mind it being changed. Infinity0 ^talk 12:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move - Mion 15:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and agreement with Cool Cat. —Mirlen 22:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move as per all the above keeps. --Oblivious 06:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to meta --Dijxtra 21:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Tfine80. He says it better than I could. Luigizanasi 16:34, 13 February 2006 (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.