Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Natural phenols and polyphenols

 __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  Boldly redirected. This discussion has been open for over a month, I say let's just get it over with. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Natural phenols and polyphenols


After three years, this project has attracted two members and seems to have been abandoned by its creator. There has been only one item of discussion during this time. I couldn't find any evidence of this project being proposed at WikiProject Council before going active. This seems to be a pet project concocted one day and I seem to be only the fourth or fifth person ever to stumble upon this corner of Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Never did anything. No activity beyond basic groundwork for a project, not approved by the council, neither member is active. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WikiProject Chemistry. Not productive, almost entirely much better covered by the target, and no reason to actually delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per SmokeyJoe. One of the two users is active, and if s/he were to come and explain the need of the project and its usefulness, I could be swayed. If this article is deleted or redirected, User Polyphenols Project should be deleted as well. Achowat (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WikiProject Chemistry. No reason to delete. Also, projects do not have to be proposed to be started. The WPC has no authority over projects and how they start or operate. That said, if someone doesn't already have a core group of people to get a project going, proposing might improve the chances of getting a project going with a critical mass of people. It's not required, though, nor should it be. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 15:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How is "never even started, nothing is lost if we delete it" not a reason to delete? Why are we always so averse to deleting WikiProjects? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This WikiProject is not entirely unreasonable, and represents someone's interet and enthusiam. While the inactivity means that it is not useful to be discovered by a random browsing editor looking for WikiProject activities, it is possible, even if unlikely, that it could be revived, or even the limited content reused in some other way.  Redirecting keeps the content available, and doesn't implicitly tell the user the very negative message that their efforts were entirely unwanted. In this particular case, redirection is useful because anyone interested in coordinating editiogn phenols (natural or not) and polyphenols would be well advised to look around and ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. You even admit that basic groundword has been done.  Why do you think this needs to be deleted? I am concerned that you could state the, with 500 edits in the last week, is inactive ?!!  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be playing it way too cautious. This WikiProject never did anything, suggesting that its topic is not conducive to a project. You even admit it's "unlikely" to be restarted, so why leave the skeletal remains behind? The only "groundwork" that I suggested was done was in the form of the few templates that all WikiProjects use. Not a big deal if those go, is it? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cautious, yes. Too cautious? What does that mean?  It seems to imply harm due to caution, where there would be less harm with an incautious approach? I can't see it. Redirecting to an enveloping WikiProject seems a superior action on all counts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Too cautious means you're tippytoeing around, afraid to ever delete anything. Oh no, this project has a .00000000000000001% chance of being revived! Whoever revived it could never be skilled enough to rebuild the templates necessary for a WikiProject! WE MUST KEEP THEM!!!!! Get real. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion professional. There needs to be some counterbalance to those whose only apparent desire is to delete everything they can. In this case, there's no real reason to delete it when redirecting it will accomplish what you and the nominate want while still preserving the public availability of the current information in case a viable group decides to restart the project. Sure someone could redo everything that's been done, but why make some go through all that hassle when they could more easily just reuse what is already there? And if no one ever decides restart it, then the redirect will remain in place indefinitely. ··· 日本穣 ? ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 07:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * TPH, my record at MfD shows me supporting the deletion of many pages. On WikiProjects, I frequently have supported a clear consensus that a weak WikiProject should be redirected.  The precedent that narrow inactive WikiProjects are redirected to active enveloping WikiProjects is strong.  An enveloping active WikiProject is easily found by looking among the WikiProject tags on the talk pages of articles directly mentioned by the overly narrow WikiProject.


 * Bringing things to MfD that should be redirected is a big waste of resources at MfD.


 * I think my approach here is very realistic.


 * You make no case that not deleting, but redirecting, causes any harm. Your use of the word "too" I maintain is incorrect.  I don't apologise for being cautious.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can sort of see the point of a redirect, but what point will there be in "preserving" anything if even you admit there's only a one billionth of one percent chance of the WikiProject being restarted? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Chemistry is a huge topic. "Natural phenols and polyphenols" is ceratinly not my expertise, but I imagaine that the field is not limited to just the chemistry of phenols, but is intended to cover naturopathic applications, or organic medicine, or other natural alternative stuff. I imagine that it is actually a viable WikiProject, with a decent chance of revival.  As it is only a couple of months old, and driven by a very active editor, it could even be argued that it needs more time.  However, there is no sign of active colaboration, and WikiProject Polyphenols/To do list is not impressive.
 * So, I don't agree that there is only less than a near-negligible chance of revival, or reuse in another way such as within WikiProject Chemistry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you guys' opinion on deleting subpages, categories, and templates that the project founder made, even if the main page is redirected? Ex. WikiProject Polyphenols/templates, Template:User NPP Project, Category:WikiProject NPP articles, etc. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the whole structure should go the same way as the main WikiProject Natural phenols and polyphenols page. If this page is deleted, then delete the whole structure.  Really, this means that everyone, especially the nominator, should consider the whole structure.  If userfied, userfy the whole structure.  If redirected, I would redirect the subpages to to the top page, which thus creates double redirects, but greatly facilitates subsequent revival without causeing any trouble in the meantime.  I haven't looked at the templates, but I imagine that they should be treate like ordinary subpages, unless put directly into the WikiProject Chemistry.  I guess that the categories would be deleted regardless.  Categories are very easy to recreate, having minimal creative content, and the CfD people are very against loose unattended categories lying around.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep : My recent inactivity on the project doesn't mean I will never return to the topic. --NotWith (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just my opinion, but a Wikiproject can't survive with just one person. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What he said. Do you really think one member = WikiProject? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a strange way of putting questions but the answer is, apparently, yes. --NotWith (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WikiProject Chemistry - member size and niche size. Tempted to delete due to niche. Widefox (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There is only one editor, and much of the editing is contrary to consensus of other Wikipedia chemists. ChemNerd (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to WikiProject Chemistry per SmokeyJoe. I am not convinced by TenPoundHammer. The material should be left in the record for people to find. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – A problem with deleting or redirecting this WikiProject is the large number of uses of the associated ratings template, WikiProject NPP. Those will need to be addressed, presumably through a TfD. I have no preference regarding the outcome of the WikiProject, but I wonder why it couldn't just be converted into an inactive WP:TASKFORCE like so many others? That way, if somebody wants to rejuvenate it in the future, they will be free to do so. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned many times in previous discussions such as this, it is not the place of a WikiProject-outsider to dump something into the WikiProject as a "Taskforce". If a WikiProject would like to adopt this as a taskforce, good for them.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First, one should not expect every reviewer to have read every discussion on Wikipedia. I happen to be viewing this from WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science, and to me it appears novel for this thread. Second, I did not plan for us to "dump" this into a task force; I presented the statement as a suggested approach. We can make the suggestion to the appropriate WikiProject as a step in the closure process.
 * Hi RJH. Sorry about the clumsy reference to previous discussions.  It just spilled from my finger tips.  I don't know what you would be supposed to do with it, and of course you are not to be familiar with a half dozen or so MfDs over the past year or so.  The reference to "dump" is how it might be seen by WikiProject Chemistry should they do an inventory and find something they knew nothing about in their subpages.  Ask them, by all means.  It could be a good idea.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone is interested, they can rejuvenate by reverting from the redirect(s). The non-negligible chance of someone wanting to do this is a big reason to redirect over delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but this would not be true if the closing admin decides to delete the project. This is a reason to suggest making this a taskforce. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The very large number of transclusions of Template:WikiProject Natural phenols and polyphenols is a problem. I suggest, without much experience here, listifying the transclusions to the template talk page, and editing the template so that it states that the article was once of interested to WikiProject Natural phenols and polyphenols, now redirected to ....    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that WikiProject Chemistry was advised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry 13:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC). As no one has responded from there, I think it needs to assumed that WikiProject_Chemistry do not want to actively adopt this.  I think it is reasonable to redirect, but no more.  There is also to option to userfy for the active author, User:NotWith, if he asks.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be logical. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, I don't mind a redirect. Let's just do it already and get this over with. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, this would be a straightforward NAC as "redirect". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2012 (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.