Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of Linus Pauling

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of Linus Pauling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In line with Wikipedia:Article_Incubator#Time_limit, this draft from March 2012 isn't really an outline about Linus Pauling but more like a skeleton for a summary version of the Linus Pauling article. I'm not sure an outline really makes sense for what seems like a single article. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MfD below, WP:Outlines continue to be supported, Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines subpages are not subject to Wikipedia:Article_Incubator documentation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not arguing about incubation issues, there's no purpose in trying to make an outline for a single article. It's literally just a shortened version of the page's table of contents. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why raise article incubator issues?

"just a shortened version of the page's table of contents" is along the lines of the typical criticism of outline articles (the other being that they duplicate lists), and to that there were counter arguments. And to be fair, this was work in progress, when WikiProject Outlines went to sleep.

It is a bad idea to delete selected pages of an inactive WikiProject because doing so distorts the picture of what it was. Archiving may be reasonable. Preferably, WikiProjects should manage themselves, and when a WikiProject is inactive/dormant, it is tagged as such and kept as an archive. The age of WikiProjects is probably over, Wikipedia moved out of its exponential growth phase many years ago. A few still have wheels turning, but mostly they are a remnant of Wikipedia history. Archive them, yes, but don't selectively delete their records. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 16 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 \\ 15:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've worked on quite a few outlines this year too. I'm busy with things in real life, but I expect to be back to daily editing soon. There are some exciting technological developments on the horizon concerning the creation, building, and maintenance of outlines, and I look forward to applying them on Wikipedia. There's no good reason to delete drafts from the outline project's draft space. The main reason I see is a bias against outlines, and that's POV. Others find them useful. So let's build more.  ;) The Transhumanist 00:08, 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.