Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress

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 keep. --BDD (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress

Only one member. I feel this project is overlapping with

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and Toy Story. JJ98 (Talk) 18:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - As with many projects there may be some overlap and minimal membership but I think this project is worth keeping. It should also be noted that this is indirectly a GLAM project so someone should let them know as well.
~~talk) 18:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)~~[reply
]

'~~Delete~~'Keep - ~~It only had two members back in 2011. It's not active at all and it's already covered by GLAM.~~
talk) 00:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I've changed to Keep because Kumioko seems interested enough in it. It is an incredible library. No harm in having a Wikiproject for it.

talk) 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually this is the GLAM LOC project.

talk) 01:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep and mark as {{Historical}}. Perhaps an editor may be interested in merging it somewhere. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is already supported by GLAM and by WPUS. I frequently edit articles under this project and pages within the project itself. Additionally, although my name is not on the members list I do support it.

talk) 21:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - just can't see any reason to delete it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, supported by a GLAM and another WikiProject. If the two members become inactive editors, then possibly mark this WikiProject as inactive/historic, and if they come back the mark can be removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taskforc-ify it to a workgroup of GLAM (such as how other related wikiprojects are converted to WG/TFs of a more general WPP.) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above !vote was deleted by
  talk · contribs) with this edit -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC) [reply
  ]
  - Sorry about that I thought it was just someone messing around.
    talk) 10:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    And why would you think that? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Because frankly IP's rarely toil in this area. Besides, this project is already indirectly related to GLAM. Its supported by WikiProject US, and its kind of its own standalone project as well. So its already kind of a taskforce of 2 projects already.
    talk) 14:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Though this is a GLAM thing, so one would think, were it to become inactive, it should be moved into GLAMprojectspace, like how TV show projects get moved under WPTV, even though they may also be descendants of WPComedy or WPUSA as well. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It used to be a subproject of WPUS but I moved it out from under it so it would get more traffic. As with many projects though if no one is actively working it they fizzle out. Too many people are more worried about protecting their favorite articles or pushing their POV and too busy to collaborate so that's what happens.
    talk) 13:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Wait, what? Keep, of course. There's active work going on with LoC in the GLAM sphere, so I can see this picking up later even if this page isn't updated much now. p.s. if articles are mistagged, the thing to do is to remove the wikiproject tag, not to try to delete the wikiproject :P I'm not sure why the two films the nominator mentioned were tagged with wikiproject LoC; seems like an error. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the above, it seems all of the Category:United States National Film Registry films were tagged as being part of the project. Anyway, keep, regardless. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phoebe, that explains why the nominator made that connection. I didn't sort through that. And Kumioko,
talk) 21:57, 7 June 2013 (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.