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 snow keep. This is in wikiproject space. Who are we to prevent someone from volunteering their time to try and draft a useful outline? If the goal is to eliminate "Outline" articles generally, MFD is not the proper venue. Would suggest an RFC on the issue of "Outline of..." articles in general. –xeno^talk 02:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of British Columbia[edit]

Largely a duplication of everything found in British Columbia. No point to this 'outline'. roux   20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, harmless project-space draft. –xeno^talk 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the more reason to delete now: prevent even more time from being wasted. //roux   21:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Project-space drafts sooner or later become mainspace forks. There are hundreds of these forks already littering the mainspace, Category:Outlines of countries for example. NVO (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep New and apparently being worked on. No harm, no attack, nothing really to be a reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per discussion items on basic topics precedent SriMesh | talk 01:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• and this discusson also SriMesh | talk 04:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I edited that page, which is part of a larger project and what seems like a very worthwhile one; it's also an interesting effort to coordinate content on any topic; the idea is a list of links to articles, with a precis of content, meant as an overview; much more useful than list of British Columbia-related topics, as it seeks to organize articles for the benefit of people seeking an outline of topics, not a general article. Keep, keep, keep, and work it up, it's a good thing.Skookum1 (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean like a portal? That's all these things are duplicating, and again, no reader is going to search for Outline of.... //roux   02:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I have seen of portals (which seek to become featured portals), is that portals in general show randomized featured content - featured images, articles biographies that show how wikipedia excels or shows wikipedia's "best of the best" in a subject area. An outline introduces a viewer more to how to find the comprehensive coverage of a subject, and helps to enlighten a reader as to the various aspects on a subject (which could be featured or in another growth article stage of development). IMHO an outline page could be an additional tabbed page of a portal.SriMesh | talk 03:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That an editor thinks an article is a waste of time is a novel reason for deletion. Could be a half million of those any one of us might feel that way about. Wikipedia needs any useful way to organize and present information and make it easy to find. This is a useful way to do it, a valuable alternative to other approaches and not a waste of time. --KenWalker | Talk 02:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to relevant wikiproject space if the project finds it useful as a guiding list, if not, delete as an unnecessary fork full of red links. NVO (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it may need culling, and I've already done quite a bit, but those redlinks such as Landforms of British Columbia (more likely/better List of landforms of British Columbia indicate article ideas which are worthwhile exploring and which can help organize other content; the outline was written by someone unfamiliar with BC - hence the prior use of "President of British Columbia" and a supposed separation between executive, legislative and judiciary (if only there were!!) and misplaced items and misunderstandings of how the administrative divisions relate to each other - myself I've been plotting exactly such an article for a while because of Wikiepdia's entrenched obsession with equating regional districts with usable regions/geographic divisions (which they're not, and they're not alone also). The Outline concept is a very valuable idea, and in looking at AFD on Outline of Canada I'd also comment that there's a difference between an outline and a raw list; an outline is able to organize a raw list, which typically is alphabetical unless made sortable through use of a table. This page is in its infancy, and in a sandbox, and it needs lots of work which I'll contribute to as I have time/inclination/solutions. It still needs work, and as the redlinks indicate there are lots of articles that are worthwhile creating - Fauna of British Columbia and Flora of British Columbia, for instance; the biogeographic zones one exists, I just didn't get the title of the link right, and the MoF, MoE, MoT and MoH region articles all need creating. This page is a great reference and something like an "articles needed" resource/indicator. Also some simply need redirects to existing articles as the author of the draft didn't know what was already out there. Frankly, those objecting to it are providing what I see as petty and impatient reasons to ditch it; are all draft outlines of this new WikiProject going to be subjected to the same hostility. Sounds like bad faith to me; let it grow, let it be shaped; I'm the only BC or BC-familiar editor to work on it so far, but I won't be alone and I think it deserves a chance to breathe and grow and get polished up. It's way more useful than a list. There's a lot of garbage and "content overburden" in Wikipedia more deserving of deletion, that's for sure....Skookum1 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with above statement..The red links enable editors to see what areas need growth on a subject area, which is another good reason for outlines-what has not been written about and should be, as it mayhaps and probably is an important but here-to-for overlooked topic of foo.SriMesh | talk 03:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep There's a whole wikiproject devoted to making these outlines. People seem to have recently discovered its existence, and there has been discussion on AN and some other places about closing it. If you have a problem with WikiProject Outline of knowledge, you should start an RfC. Please don't cause disruption by MfDing random project drafts. — Jake Wartenberg 18:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent reason for peoples' recent discovery of these is that we (WP:WPOOK) recently placed over a thousand banners and notices.  :) We apparently caught Roux's attention, and he has been making quite a stink about outlines ever since. He's posted gripes on my talk page, and over at WP:AN, and at WP:VPP. The Transhumanist 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: 2 of those threads were someone else. this thread is correct. Sorry about that. The Transhumanist 00:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - That a list is "redundant" or shares the scope with another page is not a valid reason for deleting it. See WP:CLN. Also, the page is new. Roux is judging it before it has a chance to be refined. For examples of the quality this outline is shooting for, see Outline of Japan, Outline of Iceland, Outline of Thailand, Outline of Taiwan, and Outline of Vatican City. Roux, be patient! The Transhumanist 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ignore your snide characteristion of my extremely well-founded opinion, not to mention your--oh fine, i'll be charitable--errors in what I have said where and gross mischaracterisations thereof, and merely repeat: "and again, no reader is going to search for Outline of...." These lists only duplicate/fork what already exists, require thousands of hours to maintain that could be better spent on actual content, and none of you have yet shown what benefit there is to readers of Wikipedia. The fact that there isn't any is probably the reason, but I have hopes that you'll try. //roux   23:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about that - I somehow amalgamated the memory of the two of you. Thank you for your tolerant response. The Transhumanist 00:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've written an page explaining the reasons for outlines The Transhumanist 00:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Readers won't need to search for "outline of". Most of the outlines are orphans at the moment, but this whole project is still a work in progress. Soon the outlines will be integrated (linked) into the encyclopedia where readers will be able to find them. Other efforts can also be made to improve their placement in searches, so they show up even without "outline of" being searched for. The Transhumanist 00:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Outlines help better organize information for users on Wikipedia in my opinion. I disagree that Outlines are a "waste".Burningview (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do they benefit readers?//roux   23:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How I'll answer it Roux, is to tell you to take it up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge and challenge its existence, instead of this article-by-article attack mode you seem to be onto; as someone above pointed out that's the proper approach. From my own experience of working on this page, to me they give a good outline of how British Columbia is structured geographically, poiltically, administratively etc which the main British Columbia article DOES NOT (much as it might try). The outline covers a lot more ground, in a much more logical sequence than the main article can provide, and covering certain structural aspects of details that, again, is not viable in the main article. In any case, your attempt to delete this article is misplaced, and is evidently only one of many MfD's that would be launched as a consequence were your attempt here to succeed. I looked at the AFD on the Outline of Canada, whatever it's called now - List of Canada-related topics maybe, and similar objections to the rashness of item by item AfDs/MfDs were not accepted by the arbitrator there; why should this be any different?????????Skookum1 (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's extremely educational that you lot have resorted to belittling and insulting mr so quickly. //roux   01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, as something of an expert on BC, and on BC wikispace (as others here can readily attest) I find it a very useful exercise, and know that it will benefit readers who do "think in pointform" and are trying to find certain subject matter that will not be easy to locate/navigate into via the main article of via [[:Category:British Columbia]. Your objections could also be applied to all list articles, and they're just not valid objections.Skookum1 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a reader, it lets me quickly skim and find articles of interest related to British Columbia that I'm looking for or may be interested in reading but the link is like a needle in a haystack in the main article or one of its many daughter or laterally-related articles. Gotyear (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't search for this title, but it's easy to see in "See also". And from any Outline/List of ... topics, I can quickly look for other outlines (similar basic layouts of topics) via the project's link on the talk page. Gotyear (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what we already have in navboxes, in other words. //roux   01:59, 3 June 2009 (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.