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 for now, encourage continued discussion on the WikiProject. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of forest hydrology

[edit]

Draft outline from 2009. The creator of this draft was last active over a year ago while the last edit was just under a year ago. This supposedly an outline for the proposed topic of forest hydrology, a page which does not exist. Given that the outline is largely blank and the topic seems like a neologism for something that does not actually exist, I do not see a purpose in keeping this draft further. There are some reliable sources that reference the topic but then I suggest a draft article be created rather than an outline. I'll note that this was *not* created by the editor who created a number of other outlines so, if people propose anything based on *that editor*'s conduct, it seems like a strange rationale. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm confused by a number of your assertions here. For one, forest hydrology is a field with a history and a solid literature, including several edited volumes from major academic publishers. As for the assertion that Minnecologies did not work on outlines, the Outline of forestry is mostly her work (though I think I prefer the state she left it in in 2009. I'd much rather see someone expand and improve this draft than delete it; even if it isn't, there's an awful lot of useful material that could go into writing a forest hydrology article. Guettarda (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that commentary was obtuse. It referred to User:The Transhumanist who created most of these draft outlines and unlike Minnecologies, remains active today. And in terms of useful material, it's just a series of headers and six links (one of which is red). It's fine if you think it should be kept but if there's no article on the subject, no history for the subject, no category I can see, no category of scholars, what exactly is there to outline and what evidence is there that any outline isn't just pure WP:OR here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a marker and reminder that we need to create an outline on this subject -- think of it as more than an item on a wish list. It's an embryo! Being a draft in the outline project's draft space, it is in exactly the location it is supposed to be in. It can remain here indefinitely where it may inspire someone to work on outlining this subject. It was a small step forward, which may lead to more steps forward. Going backwards by deleting it is a step in the wrong direction. Heck, I might even work on it someday. But if you erase it, it won't be here to remind me (or prompt anyone else) to do so. The Transhumanist 22:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close in favour of broad discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines#The_future_of_Outlines._Discuss_here.2C_or_pull_apart_the_WikiProject_bit_by_bit.3F. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 5 July 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.