- Wikipedia:WikiProject Conceptual Jungle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
To my surprise as of February 11th 2011 the Wikiproject I created and spend a lot of time to build was deleted as it has few members and there hasn't been a lot of activity for some time. These reasons for deletion have value but they are not of overriding importance, as the problems the project tries to curb - conceptual wild growth - is still and will remain present on Wikipedia. There are no other projects that deal with this matter. The project serves as a way to track how various articles are interrelated, how some articles could be merged. This valuable data is now no longer accessible and the community can therefore no longer use the data gathered in the project to get an overview of unnecessary wild growth of articles. Brz7 (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Link to MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conceptual Jungle.
- As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. MFD was a slam-dunk delete, with no dissenting opinions. From what I recall, there were no discussions on the talk page, except for some leftovers from Esperanza (I could be wrong on this). The term Conceptual jungle doesn't even have an article, so the project's name didn't even make sense. Surely there is at least one science or botany WikiProject which can handle the seemingly very few articles on this topic. Nom's argument of "track[ing] how various articles are interrelated" makes no sense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- InactiveWP states MfD deletion is allowed for "completely inactive projects which have no substantive history AND serve no residual purpose even without activity" - the second aspect is clearly not the case, as the project has a sensible function and my intention was to make it a collaborative effort. But it remained a rather obscure project even though its goals are important for the quality of Wikipedia. There's indeed no concept description, no Wikipedia article on conceptual jungle, and neither should there be one as it would deprive conceptual jungle of its elusive meaning: to make the project clearer it could be renamed to "conceptual clarity", which is a less metaphorical and quite common description of the core research of this wikiproject. Brz7 (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you intended something humourous, meaningful or clever with respect to the project? I suggest that you write an essay instead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I made this last remark as there were comments made about the Wikiproject name that could indeed be made clearer by referring to the project project's goal (conceptual clarity) instead of the problem (conceptual jungle) it tries to deal with. It's something that can't be just dealt with in the form of an essay. The Wikiproject format is right for this task. Brz7 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. For common sense practical reasons, we review pages before deletion, not afterwards. If there is some special factor that was misunderstood or overlooked in the original Mfd then restoration is reasonable, if not then the pages shouldn't be restored. Given that I can't now check the project - a project in which I was otherwise uninvolved - I assume my original judgement was correct. (SmokeyJoe's suggested 'speedy undelete' because of "Insufficient participation by people interested in subject, or in WikiProjets in general" is so general it could apply to almost every Mfd of this type, so it really is a criticism of the process, rather than this particular case.) --Kleinzach 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You got my suggested wrong. The "Speedy undelete" is not on the basis of insufficient participation. It is on the bases of a reasonable request for undeletion of project space material that doesn't include anything remotely offensive. I assume that the nominator here intends to do something productive with the undeleted material. I think today's request is reasonable, and am quite sure there is nothing offensive in the deleted material.
- The "Insufficient participation ..." criticism does indeed apply to many MfDs of this type. MfD is not well suited or well used to attempt to deal with these things (generally unremarkable run-off-the-mill things) on a case by case basis, and I recommend better attention to the existing guideline, as updated with time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. As far as I can remember, there was indeed nothing problematic/offensive or whatever in the material. I think a common sense solution would be to userfy the material. i.e. give it to Brz7 to develop (or not) within his own userspace. --Kleinzach 03:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy userfy would be very reasonable here. By my "overturn" comment, it could be read well as a voice supporting Br7Z's right to subsequently move it back to project space without hitting WP:CSD#G4, although I would advise him to first read the comments at the previous MfD, and also TenPoundHammer's point above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- <ec> A) the MfD was plain. B) IAR, there is no good reason not to undelete and have a wider discussion. As others have said, the MfD process isn't the best for this kind of thing and we should recognize that a broader discussion may be needed. IAR wins. undelete and if anyone feels the deletion is appropriate start a discussion on that project's page and potentially start an RfC. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One point I haven't seen anyone issue yet: The concept of conceptual jungle doesn't have a Wikipedia article and the term gets <200 hits on Google. Is this really the kind of thing that should have a Wikiproject? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- To be fair, you don't look so deeply at a SNOW discussion. No complaint should be made about the nom, the closer, or the other participants. I assume that the nom assumed that the notability of the subject focus was soon to be demonstrated. Of course, lacking a notable subject for its focus is a very bad sign for a WikiProject's usefulness. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some evidence that a new MfD would reach a different conclusion, given TenPoundHammer's comment above? If not, then restoring and relisting just to get it deleted again is pointless process wonkery. T. Canens (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse based on the MFD; the project was stillborn as distinct from having gotten off to a good start and become inactive. The nominator herein is similarly inactive; can we be confident that he and others will bring the project back to some level of activity? Stifle (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did we invent a rule that there are minimum activity thresholds for WikiProjects while I wasn't looking? If there is in fact such a rule, then DRV would need to endorse this deletion. But if there is no such rule, then it seems to me that there are strong grounds for overturning.—S Marshall T/C 14:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore. While the deletion was made in good faith, the basis for the deletion, lack of and likeliness of participation, have been substantially called into question and rebutted. Erring by keeping a project that is not getting much attention is a better error than inhibiting participation by deleting it. TJRC (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- relist It looks like there wasn't sufficient discussion. I'm not convinced that there's enough here to outright overturn, but a second MfD discussion with more participation won't hurt. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, I think. Relist would be reasonable based on the brevity of the MFD (though as said above, that is a typical level of participation for that forum), but my opinion if it were would be to delete. This Wikiproject is based on the idea that nomenclature should be consistent and logical beyond that specified in Article titles and in the MOS. Though clearly well-intentioned, that agenda is not actually supported by policy, which allows for considerable variation between different articles (a necessary outgrowth of our inclusive methods). So I don't this is appropriate for a wikiproject. If the content is wanted, it could certainly be userfied, but I think even in userspace it should take the form of an essay--this is something the author thinks we should do, not something the community has improved. Chick Bowen 20:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think I stand behind my words at the MFD, it was deleted mainly due to being inactive project. As commented above by Ten Pound Hammer, the topic doesn't even have its own article. On the other hand, as is stated above, only a few people were involved in the MFD and there isn't actually a rule defining what kind of project is too inactive to be kept. There's no rule, but it just sounds unnecessary to have projects with a few, inactive participants. This case is however more ambiguous, as the project had been inactive for some time, although it had its more active days in the past, and perhaps will have more in the future if it gets restored or restarted. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 12:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion There is no quorum at deletion discussions. The "overturn" side argues that MfD is an obscure forum and that the discussion was not publicized well enough to allow interested parties to comment. In most cases, this would be a sufficient reason for me to support voiding the result and support relisting. However, several comments from the "endorse" side have swayed me to support their position.
Stifle (talk · contribs) notes that the WikiProject was "stillborn" and the DRV nominator is inactive. It is unlikely, then, that the project will become active. TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) notes that the WikiProject's topic (conceptual jungle) lacks an article and that an article is improbable per the lack of Google results. Chick Bowen (talk · contribs) writes that "This Wikiproject is based on the idea that nomenclature should be consistent and logical beyond that specified in Article titles and in the MOS." As such, this WikiProject's goal is incompatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Per Kleinzach (talk · contribs) and Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), because no new information has come to light, and because there is little reason to doubt the outcome would change if the page is relisted, the discussion should not be relisted. Per WP:NOTBURO and per the fact that there were no procedural irregularities, I oppose relisting. Cunard (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|