Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators
- 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 speedy keep Raul654 20:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This falls under instruction creep and unnecessary bureaucracy. As the page itself states, the "coordinators" have very little official power; rather, they "aid in keeping the process running smoothly". Anyone can help with maintenance and housekeeping work, update lists, or write guidelines; you don't need a bureaucratic system with voting rounds for that. And if you want to have "designated points of contact", then just add a section about that on the main WikiProject page, where anyone with sufficient experience in the project can add themselves. I fail to see why this page is needed. Melsaran (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep, don't argue with success. MilHist is one of the best run WikiProjects and an example for others. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
- What does that have to do with anything? I'm not nominating the WikiProject for deletion, just its unnecessary bureaucratic "coordinators" system. Melsaran (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - the co-ordinators on this project help make this project one of the best around, more projects should have co-ordinators. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why do they need a formal bureaucratic process to "help make this project one of the best around"? Melsaran (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- God knows, but it works! In a nutshell - the co-ordinators keep the project on track and focussed allowing better articles to be created - a bonus for wikipedia in my eyes! Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why do they need a formal bureaucratic process to "help make this project one of the best around"? Melsaran (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — coordinators do not exercise any "power"; they just coordinate (hence the name). That helps Wikipedia; it certainly doesn't hurt it. --Agüeybaná 19:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- They can coordinate without formally being appointed as "coordinators". Melsaran (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strongest possible keep - You don't argue with success, and the Military History project is one of the biggest successes out there. John Carter 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing with success. I'm arguing with an unnecessary bureaucratic system. See my comments above. Melsaran (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Then the appropriate place to raise these concerns would be at the talk page of this page or the main Military history project talk page, not by nominating a page for deletion. John Carter 20:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing with success. I'm arguing with an unnecessary bureaucratic system. See my comments above. Melsaran (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The WP milhistory project has many members; some kind of officials help the project. While I would agree for small projects, the sheer size of this project (over 40,000 articles) justifies a bit of bureaucracy. Arnoutf 20:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per the above comments and WP:SNOW. I have posted to the nominator's talkpage asking him to consider withdrawing this MfD. Newyorkbrad 20:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any argument for keeping the page? Melsaran (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.