Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of permaculture projects (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. There is consensus that this is a viable topic, but that the article is currently very poor. Opinions are quite evenly divided between keeping and draftifying; I'm going with the latter given the marginally higher support. There is no consensus for requiring recreation via AfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of permaculture projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet our criteria for list notability (WP:NLIST and especially WP:CSC). Certainly not all permaculture projects are notable, so it cannot meet Criteria #1. However, some permaculture projects are notable, so it cannot meet Criteria #2. It certainly cannot meet WP:CSC Criteria 3, since there are thousands of permaculture projects worldwide. Any truly notable permaculture projects can be covered adequately at permaculture and their own individual pages.

It was previously nominated for deletion in 2014, and despite clean-up efforts around that time, has remained in a shoddy state because of its fundamental issues. This page regularly attracts a lot of poorly sourced and unsourced additions, constantly becoming an indiscriminate list (WP:LSC), leading to WP:TNT being valid as well. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Environment. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that if it's deleted, these examples will end up stinking out permaculture again. I have no problem with going through it and terminating entries without decent secondary sourcing with extreme prejudice: in the worst case that means there will be a moderately contained list of them here and maybe a very short highlight of them in the main article. Otherwise you're going to have an even bigger struggle keeping cruft out of there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If this should be deleted from wikipedia, then i nominate that this be moved to v:Permaculture/List of permaculture projects - this list has learning value IMO. limitless peace. Michael Ten (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I do think it would be possible to create a List of permaculture projects that meets WP:NLIST; particularly if we were to limit it to permaculture projects that were independently notable, and which had their own articles. However, given that eight years has passed and the issues of indiscriminate information within this article still remain, I think its best to delete it with no prejudice against recreating it if an editor is willing to tackle it properly.4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been some talk of pruning this article to make it usable but no work has been done thus far. However, it is not eligible for Soft Deletion (that having been the previous AFD outcome) so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with no prejudice to immediate renomination if User:Thumperward does not do what he says he is going to do. SpinningSpark 12:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's fair to anyone to make this article's status contingent on one particular user feeling obligated to work on it, with no clear timeline for improvement. Plus it feels very odd that I would then have to hang around to decide if their work is sufficient or not and decide on renomination; that shouldn't be hanging over their heads if they do want to work on the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a keep and cleanup vote. That is a perfectly valid position. It would be even more "hanging" if we did not already have someone who had indicated they were going to do the work. The "no prejudice to immediate renomination" wording is because speedy renominations are generally speedy closed as too soon per WP:RENOM. If I change to a straight keep (the usual position for cleanup cases per WP:NOTCLEANUP), and it passes, then you would be even more stuffed to get it deleted. SpinningSpark 17:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep and cleanup is certainly a perfectly valid vote, I just thought the phrasing you used had odd implications/expectations for both Thumperward and myself. In any case, I appreciate your clarification, which makes sense. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark This would be an example where draftify could be a useful alternative.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, not mine. If the page is going to be improved, that can be done just as well in mainspace. If nothing is going to happen, you will just be sending it to draft to die. SpinningSpark 08:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Not actually a list article currently, but it is plausible that an overhaul could result in WP:NLIST being met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It looks like the options proposed are Keep, with a heavy pruning (done by whom?), outright deletion or moving it to Wikiversity (which I don't know how to do). Any final thoughts on this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:. Transwikiing requires the importer right at the target project. There is a page at Wikiversity, V:Wikiversity:Import, where importing can be requested from someone with suitable rights. I don't think this is an issue with Wikiversity, but note that not all projects are cool with importing; some don't even have the feature turned on. SpinningSpark 08:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, do not keep Not a list, horrible quality. Lurking shadow (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep contingent on Thumperward's plans, or draftify (but don't require AfC) until the pruning/sourcing can be done. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up, or draftify, per above discussion. It's a great concept, but a bit messy. I prefer SMART, emphasis on the Time-bound, goals. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I won't relist a discussion a 4th time but I just want to ping Thumperward in case they wanted to respond to these comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 5 November 2022 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.