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 without prejudice for future redirecting and merging to mainspace . — xaosflux ^Talk 00:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of the LGBT community[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of the LGBT community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A draft outline that hasn't been edited for almost a year now. Started in 2011 but it seems like it's already covered by Outline of LGBT topics. At best, it may be better as a sort of suboutline or an outline to LGBT culture but it seems like it's just a listification of the relevant categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepClose in favour of wider discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines. Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines is an active WikiProject, and it is not helpful for someone to use MfD to externally attempt to manage the project. Concerns should first be raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is literally no other project that has ever argued that drafts should or should be not kept because the project alone has decided that it uniltaterally WP:OWNs these drafts and thus no discussion about these drafts should take place without the project's direct involvement and vote. Vote keep if you think the draft is going somewhere but do not vote keep on the bizarre requirement that all draft outlines must be kept since the project is active. Besides, if I try to tag other WikiProjects on these drafts, you then remove them as "mischief" because the outlines projects wants to keep all these outlines secret. This is not the way this project works. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I may be wrong (note this search of deletion discussions of outline article pages, which shows a level of acceptance occurred), but in my view these pages are not properly considered articles, or article drafts, and that they don't belong in mainspace. I fear that if you move them to draftspace, well meaning editors with start to fork content into them. I think, from a long held interest in Wikipedia:Outlines, that the WikiProject needs a discussion, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines, on matters such as: (1) Do outlines belong in mainspace, and if so, to what level; (2) What is the minimum number of articles covered by an outline to justify having an outline; (3) as outlines are supposed to achieve comprehensive coverage of content, and as activity is clearly not on path to achieve that, could we look at automated writing / compilation of outlines? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are on path to achieve that, albeit slowly, and it very well may take automation to speed us towards reaching comprehensiveness. In the meantime, we have an incomplete yet useful set of outlines. Concerning automation, see Automatic taxonomy construction (ATC), another way of saying "automatically building outlines". The interesting thing is that field is at the heart of AI research, as ATC is used to build the cores of ontologies, which form the basis of computer awareness. The Transhumanist 01:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing this nomination again, it is not an unreasonable nomination per se. Straight off I think if deleted, it should be pseudo deleted by redirection, and so the discussion need not have been at MfD, but either in its talk page or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

"it seems like it's just a listification of the relevant categories". YES, that is the major criticism of all outline articles generally. And to the extend that editors add material, they are either forking or adding unreferenced WP:OR. But this this discussion needs to be held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines (or WT:Outlines), not piecemeal starting from the worst at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing the deletion of all outlines here so I have no idea what you're going on about. This particular draft is literally just a listing of a number of years pages and a number of countries pages. It's literally quoting the category. If that's what these outlines are for, that seems worthless to me. The general LGBT outline is actually useful and not just a copy of categories. And no, we don't need a talk at a WikiProject about policies. Policies are created and the projects reflect and give advise but they don't create policy. I dealt with Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People which had similar kinds of ideas and it took two drags to ARBCOM and a decade of blocks and bans before it became clear that the WikiProject is a part of the whole project, not some walled garden that can make it up its own rules and force it on everyone else. The editors at the project are aware of this deletion now if not when I added the tag to the talk page and it went through the article alerts system. From there, that's it. Why should Outlines get to own this discussion? Doesn't Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies also have a right to discuss how the LGBT pages including indexes, outlines, categories and the like are structured? Either way, both projects have been tagged, both projects can get notified and editors at both projects can come to MFD and have MFD discuss what should happen with this draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is never clear what you are up to. Deleting the whole WikiProject page by page, or moving pages to DraftSpace where they will be deleted later. If the discussion were to be about policy, it should be held at Wikipedia talk:Outlines. If it is about moving forward with the drafts, then discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines. Using MfD to force cleanup of WikiProject Outlines old ideas doesn't seem very efficient or collegial. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you WP:AGF about me for once. I thought this MFD discussion was pretty clear on the exact page I'm proposing for deletion and why. If these drafts aren't being actively edited, I have no idea why whether or not the project itself is matters. The biography project is clearly active and yet we delete biography drafts daily without you arguing to drag all discussions there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are being over-sensitive, and this following repeated "I have no idea why" introductions to your comments about me, after I have explained something to you over a dozen times.

WikiProject Outlines draft subpages are full of template generated outline concepts, it was not clear why you chose this one over the others, nor clear that you intend to stop with this one. Past behaviour is for you to steadily nominate a series of similar looking things.

I think there is a huge problem with these pages, unless ignored, and that the way forward is a discussion of them collectively, not individually. These is no question that you think deletion of this page is a step in the right direction, and I disagree on the point that there is a better path through the marshes. And on principle that WikiProjects should manage their own affairs (I am still trying to find the relevant history of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People that you refer me to). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity and you should see why the idea of deferring MFD to a WikiProject is a problem. If you think there's a collective issue, then it can be discussed but outlines overall should not be discussed at the WikiProject with some presumption that the project has some greater expertise or authority on the subject than anywhere else. As noted before, that creates problems. Otherwise, I am evaluating these as pages and based on my review of this page, I see no reason why there would need to be an outline on this topic when another outline on a similar topic already exists and when there's no indication that this draft is being improved upon. I see nothing from you about the actual content of this page, just some complaining and demands that all further discussion about things created within this project be carved out from MFD (and I assume AFD/CFD and otherwise) if it relates to an outline and left to the project and the project's editors rather than the wider community. I would say that the outlines project would have been better served if, from day one, there was an effort even a minimal one to inform people involved in the actual topics about those outlines rather than take on the approach that the Outlines project, and that project alone, should be concerned with outlines. That attitude is one large reason why I suspect the remaining outlines are stagnant and entirely dependent on a single editor's involvement. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied and replied at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines#The_future_of_Outlines._Discuss_here.2C_or_pull_apart_the_WikiProject_bit_by_bit.3F --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge what you can and then delete. Basic duplicate of Outline of LGBT topics. That page can use a little expansion so merge what you can from this draft to there and then delete as unnecessary. Pretty sure per WP:NOATT that page history doesn't need to be kept for attribution in a merge scenario since it is just wikilinks (although I could be wrong and someone should probably verify if this is what ends up happening). --Majora (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - These are outlines created by an active editor who created them many years ago and edited them most recently last year. I'd encourage The Transhumanist to think about whether these are actually going to go anywhere, and to CSD if not, but I see no reason to delete a draft started by an active editor that isn't actively harmful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the only person that matter the one who created these drafts? This project has acted unilaterally for years and with serious opposition to anyone else being involved in discussing outlines. See this discussion from 2011. The RFC about eliminating outlines overall was self-closed by the nominator as no consensus. This draft is duplicative of another outline that wasn't created by the outlines project so do we allow duplicates of anything as long as the one editor there wants to create them? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's a problem with outline articles in general, with The Transhumanist, with the WikiProject, etc. that's not really something for a bunch of separate MfDs to address, in my opinion. I just see a nomination of a draft outline (which, fraught though it may be, I understand to be a legitimate form of article), created by an active editor, nominated for deletion before that editor has commented on their intentions/opinions. Except when a draft is actively harmful, when it was created by an active editor, there should be a discussion with that editor, and go to MfD only if the editor becomes inactive or acts unreasonably/egregiously in some manner not keeping to the spirit of policies/guidelines on drafts, etc. (and really, if the latter, it seems like another venue would be more appropriate to deal with it rather than many separate MfD nominations). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – it's a rough start on the subject, and that's why it is in draft space. It needs a lot of work before it should be moved to article space. Which brings us to the topics of work and stepping stones. What you see here is that some work has been done. This work was necessary for further work to be done. If you erase this work, it has to be done over in order to get to this point again and from here go beyond. So please don't delete it. Someone can pick up where I left off. Maybe even me. I intend to get back to this when I am able. So please don't make me start over from scratch when I do. The Transhumanist 01:35, 28 June 2016 (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.