Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Greenhouse

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 delete Shii (tock) 03:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Incubator/Greenhouse


So, I hear you asking, what is the incubator greenhouse? I'm not sure anyone can give a real answer to that. It is a sub-process of the article incubator, conceived and used by exactly one user, as evidenced by the page history. In fact, if you look at the discussions there you will see this one user providing themselves with updates and carrying on one-sided conversations, apparently oblivious to the fact that nobody else is participating. It is not actually a collaborative process at all and seems to be a needless distraction from the main incubator project, which is barely surviving as is. Unless a very compelling explanation is forthcoming of why this is beneficial and is actually helping restore "incubated" articles to mainspace above and beyond the regular incubation process I don't see the point of having an entire process that is almost totally unknown and used exclusively by the user who created it. (and apparently by daring to nominate an item that was in the "greenhouse workflow" a month ago I caused the process to stop anyway, it has not been used since then even by the one user who supposedly understands what it even is) I could see userfying this as a personal project but since it is one users' exclusive domain it clearly does not belong in project space as it is manifestly not being used as part of any collaborative project and was created without any consensus or (as far as I know) discussion of any kind as to its scope and purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - This is set up to look very "official". If Unscintillating likes to organize his activities in this colourful way, is there a reason all this can't be moved to his/her user space, and the title changed to reflect that it's a personal project (Maybe "Unscintillating's Greenhouse"?  As long as it isn't misleading, it would  be a lot more Wikipedia oriented than many things that are on users' pages. I would support userfication if I could be assured that it's not against any policy. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did mention this very idea in my nomination, personal projects like this should probably be in userspace. However, my recent efforts to clean up the backwater that the incubator has become have been met with rather extreme hostility from him (he tried to have me banned from touching anything in the incubator) so just asking him to move it seemed unlikely to be an effective approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a personal project, it has been an open discussion and process at WT:Article Incubator, and is only one of several discussions of new designs to improve the incubator. If editors object to having a separate page to list current Greenhouse discussions, the primary alternative is  to list those discussions at WT:Article Incubator.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Readers who do not check their facts may be misled. For example, the claim that there was no consensus for the Greenhouse is undocumented.  That is because there has never been any objection to the Greenhouse.  During one of the Greenhouse discussions, one user lauded my efforts in supporting the incubator, and just two days before Beeblebrox began his WP:BATTLEGROUND against the work and institutions in the incubator, I had attracted a second regular contributor to the Greenhouse discussions.  As per our fundamental principles, it is not necessary for Wikipedia editors to get "permission" to improve the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No one disputed at that Beeblebrox has shown delusional behavior about the Article incubator.  Again I ask, "Why do the admins do nothing?"  Since I took Beeblebrox to WP:AN within two hours of the time that he began his WP:BATTLEGROUND against the Incubator, and this current MfD shows no abating of the WP:BATTLEGROUND, I see no future here other than WP:Arbcom.


 * Comment - This MfD was mentioned at a 13 August 2013 AN request. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't, this mfd was not opened until nearly a month after that thread was closed. At that time there was an RFC proposing that the incubator itself be marked as historical and basically closed, which would have also closed the "greenhouse" by default, and someone else opened an MFD for the "incubator portal" which was another weird effort by this same user to re-invigorate the incubator. And a lot of things that were "incubating" have been to mfd or afd in the last month, but this is the first discussion of specifically deleting the greenhouse. When the proposal to close the incubator failed to gain consensus I took it upon myself to try and clean out some of the junk that had been accumulating there and this is part of that effort. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The purpose of the Greenhouse is not clear, but the page/project created May 2013‎ has to be something, so I'm going to identify it as a task force since it appears to be a subgroup of the larger WikiProject Article Incubator. A discussion here identifies Greenhouse as "a new workflow". This post mentions that Greenhouse discussions are being closed out, but they are only posts by one user who also closes out his/her own posts. This post mentions adding an incubated article that had not been actively edited to the Article Incubator/Greenhouse, so it appears that Article Incubator/Greenhouse receives articles that are not actively edited in Article Incubator. The purpose of Article Incubator is "an intention that the article can and will be improved". When that improvement does not materialize, there is no reason to believe that adding the article to Article Incubator/Greenhouse will result in the article being improved. There is no indication that the task force received consensus for its creation and it largely only has received participation by one editor. I considered userfication. However, since it is not clear as to what Article Incubator/Greenhouse is, I'm not sure the basis for userfication. Delete, but if the closer also want's to userfy, I'm fine with that. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Was it not possible to ask questions at WT:Article Incubator/Greenhouse if you didn't understand the nature of the Greenhouse? You are technically correct that the Greenhouse page does not improve articles, this is because the Greenhouse page is a transclusion of Talk pages with Greenhouse discussions, so discussion occurs on article talk pages rather than on the transclusion page.  If there is really an objection that the problem is a page separate from WT:Article Incubator, it is possible to keep the list of current Greenhouse discussions at WT:Article Incubator.  However, your comments that extend to discussions that have occurred on Talk pages suggest that you are opposed to using Talk pages to improve articles in the incubator, which makes no sense.  At WT:Article Incubator, I asked editors to "Please take a few minutes to Google for sources and add sources to the ==Further reading== sections."  Have you ever tried to add sources to any of the articles listed at the Greenhouse?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The origin of the Greenhouse is my post on 22:13, 27 May 2013 at  See Wikipedia_talk:Article Incubator/2013 June mass MfD.  Illia's criteria for taking articles to MfD was articles that had not received attention for one year.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Since this is a discussion about the transclusion page, there is no need for an in-depth comment about the Talk page discussions, but if you really think that articles that have gone through Greenhouse discussions have not been improved, you are looking in the wrong places, as articles that have gone through the Greenhouse process have always been improved. Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Yeah, I don't get it. Let Unscintillating run something like this in userspace if desired. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the Greenhouse process occurs on Talk pages. Are you suggesting moving talk page discussion to my userspace?  Or are you opposed to having a separate page being used to list current Greenhouse discussions?  Are you aware that anyone can list current Greenhouse discussions on WT:Article Incubator?  So just what exactly are you trying to accomplish by !voting to delete this?  Are you trying to stop editors from improving incubated articles?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. What talk page discussion? You're the only one who's edited the page or talk page. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment As per the closing of the RFC, the community does not agree with shutting down the Incubator.  This includes the Greenhouse transclusion page, which was one of the targets of Beeblebrox's RfC when he stated, "Expanding it into portals and so forth...", where the "so forth" included the Greenhouse.  There will never be a justification for turning the various links to the Greenhouse page into red links, and even if Beeblebrox starts a new RfC to have the Greenhouse transclusion page marked as historical and is successful, he will have a much harder time stopping the community from using Talk pages to improve articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete- as a personal project whose purpose and scope are unclear, and which does not appear to be intended to improve anything in the mainspace. It looks more like unproductive officious fussing and a vehicle for passive-aggressive complaints about "interrupted workflows". Unscintillating has a history of creating pointless things like this that he then attempts to pass off as standardised and streamlined bits of official Wikipedia process. The defense of this new bit of process wonkery, as far as I can decipher it, makes the following claims:
 * That talking to yourself on a disused talk page equates to a "community discussion" that is then binding on everyone else.
 * That lack of consensus to close down the whole incubator (I think it should be closed down, BTW) means that various bits and pieces of it cannot be discussed individually.
 * That Beeblebrox is being disruptive and is motivated by some sort of maliciousness.
 * There is no truth whatsoever to any of these claims. Reyk  YO!  02:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's not getting any support. Unscintillating is just talking to themself, and no one seems to be adding anything. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.