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, it's snowing. Concerns about the actual use of this will need to be taken elsewhere. Triplestop x3 19:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Attention whoever is thinking about spending a minute or two commenting on this MFD: Why not spend a minute or two trying out the incubator instead? Just hit Special:NewPages and find an article that might get speedied or might have a viable future. Notify the creator with {{ Incu-notify}} or a personalized message, move it to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Whatevername, and slap an {{Article Incubator}} on it. Then sit back and watch the fun, or help with improvement. This is an alternative to userfication, and has the advantage of encouraging more eyeballs on the article rather than orphaning it where only one editor knows about it.

A mission fork operating some sort of deletion-pedia within the Wikipedia: namespace. Articles that admittedly fail to meet our sourcing, notability, or any and all other requirements are moved into a subpage of this page. This is not some sort of userfication on steroids but an entire end-run around the policies on content that we have developed as a community. -- M ^ask? 20:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - the Article Canvass Squadron is bad enough. We have established ways of dealing with articles that could maybe be good one day--it's called userfication. And "Articles are moved from the main encyclopedia into a temporary location, or article incubator, to be worked on collaboratively" just made my head spin. →  ROUX  ₪  20:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep - One, the project just launched so the above analysis of what the project does is a bit premature. Two, this certainly isn't "deletion-pedia" as articles won't stay in the project indefinitely (unlike userification). Three, the idea is to serve as an alternative to userifcation - with the benefit of collaboration. This is not an "end-run around the policies" unless you consider userification to also be invalid, as the two serve the same purpose - remove content that is unfit for mainspace, but has the potential to become usable. Furthermore, unlike userspace Incubator articles are NOINDEXed, which means search engines won't link to them. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Please wait The nominator has also, to use the editor's words above "canvassed" ANI about this MfD. [1] I am concerned that there were no attempts to discuss concerns before putting this project up for deletion. An editor above acknowledges in a round about way that the system doesn't work now. "established ways of dealing with articles that could maybe be good one day" Wikipedia:Article Incubator is a possible alternative solution to AFDs. It has garnered support from all sides of the deletion debate. The userfication page has been around since 12 February 2006, and unforunatly no lasting solution has come from it. Ikip ( talk) 20:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I acknowledged no such thing. Do not put words in my mouth, ever. Anything that prevents Wikipedia from being overrun by fancruft and stupid articles that do nothing to serve the purpose of an encyclopedia is a good thing. This 'incubator' is designed to do precisely that: keep articles which have no place here. →  ROUX  ₪  20:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • thus far, in its couple of days existence, the project has "graduated" two articles: Downtown Emergency Service Center and Eddie Kilroy. I don't understand how either of those articles qualify as "fancruft" [an uncivil term] or "stupid articles"? Ikip ( talk) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Neither of which required the latest iteration of the Not Notable At All But It Exists So There Should Be An Article About It League. Also note that the post which had the appearance of canvassing was removed from AN/I, by me. →  ROUX  ₪  21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Please note that Eddie Kilroy actually was deleted (under Eddie Kilroy (producer) before being moved into the project. The idea that current processes work perfectly is rather absurd. (Not saying this will make them work perfecly, but it at least has the potential to help.) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
          • You seem to be suggesting that this is an ARS-style inclusionist project. Do you really think that I am an inclusionist? Fritzpoll ( talk) 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Catchy titles aside, how is Downtown Emergency Service Center and Eddie Kilroy not notable? Ikip ( talk) 23:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Eddie was actually speedied. Great process: clearly came to the right conclusion in that case. The DESC article was languishing in the sandbox of an active admin who wasn't gonna do anything with it anytime soon - in fact, he forgot it was there for two years. Lazy bastard; someone desysop him already. That's an active editor's user space. Most userfied articles go to the user spaces of accounts that lasted all of 3 days because they were discouraged when their first article was immediately nominated for deletion. How is userfication a successful process? - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 01:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• The nominator raises an interesting point about avoiding process, but, if it works, this project will at least ensure that userfied articles are actually worked on rather than languishing indefinitely in userspace. It needs some time to see how well it will work.  pablo _hablo. 20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Give it some time. The way to find out if a process works or not is to try it and see, and tweak it as it goes along. Deletion is premature. Also, if this ends in delete, I recommend moving it to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Wikipedia:Article Incubator for improvement. :) -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Oh thats funny. you deserve a barnstar for that. Ikip ( talk) 20:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - this is jumping the gun somewhat. We're not underway properly yet, which explains things like the admittedly head-pinning sentence that Roux raises above. There is every intention of a high churn rate - that is, articles will not languish in the subpages. Those that are in there are NOINDEXed, so at least the stuff won't appear in Google while they're being worked on. There is not intention that all sub-standard articles end up in here, just the ones where some work might be possible to get them up to standard. I must caveat this with being the creator of the page - it never ceases to amaze me, however, how quickly we reject ideas without giving them a go. If in a few months this doesn't prove workable, I will personally tag it historical, or MfD it or whatever is necessary - but rather than assume what it is, will be, or may become, just give us the chance to provide an alternative to biting new users with deletion sometimes when their contributions might be salvageable into useful content. Fritzpoll ( talk) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Wait, see what happens. It might be something useful, or it might be a misguided mess, but deletion won't help make that clear. Friday (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The nominator assumes bad faith, believing that this is an attempt to avoid policy and be a deletionpedia. If they read the page and the talk page they would be aware that the aim is to work on articles at risk of deletion, and then either return them to Wikipedia or kill them with fire. This is not an inclusionist plot. This is not a shrine to lost articles. As for Roux's comment that a sentence I wrote made his head spin, perhaps my writing style was overly complicated or maybe Roux's reading comprehension is on the blink, but that's the worst argument for deletion I've ever seen. Fences& Windows 23:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep At least give it a few months to see if this can work better than userfication. Hopefully it does not turn into WP:Article morgue or WP:Article exit lounge or WP:Article hospice. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep, there's no harm and potentially much good in having this project to encourage the improvement of endangered articles. It should be commended as a good idea, not threatened with deletion (ironic, huh?). Everyking ( talk) 23:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep, subject to the condition that there are proper controls over the project. These should include provision for incubated articles to be subject to community review before being moved to the mainspace, in a kind of reverse AfD discussion in which "no consensus" defaults to "do not promote to mainspace". Said discussions should be closed only by administrators.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• We need no special patrol to keep the Incubators in check! If anyone is worried by the quality of graduating articles, they can monitor Category:Article Incubator graduates. Fences& Windows 00:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• In fact, please do! Let us know quickly if we start screwing up, so we can stop, by suicide if necessary. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 01:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• In some cases, community approval will be overkill, such as a CSD'd article improved past CSD (hopefully past Prod also): it can be subject to AfD following restoration in article space. I am interested in discussing this point for incubation following deletion at AfD, but articles are not currently being incubated from there. Flatscan ( talk) 04:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• La, la, la - I'll repeat what I've said in other places. I'm willing to guarantee this project, in the following sense. I'm actively involved in it, and if it turns into any of the horror stories that some critics claim it will, I'm fully prepared to delete it entirely. I'm going to wait for actual bad effects though, not just certain prognostications that we're going to fail. Watch us fail, and then say you told us so, ok?

  I think the advantages of incubation over userfication are clear: user space is full of articles that are userfied to the spaces of newbies who never come back to work on them. At least in the incubator, they'll be seen by a lot more eyes. At least in the incubator, they'll mercifully shot if they're not ready after a fixed period of time. I'll push the button, and enjoy it. That shooting's not happening now, at least not reliably. Supporters of userfication, how many idle userfied articles are on our servers right now - pop quiz! Do you know? I don't.

  A couple of points, on a more personal note: I've been called a lot of things on this project, but never an "inclusionist" before. I find the ARS to be pretty much... I dunno, not up my alley. Also, WR has predicted the project will be dead of madness, fire and vice within 6 months. I'm curious to see if they're right. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 01:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Premature MfD This is a good idea in theory and the project as written appears very useful for needy articles. As it is brand new, this is only a sketch of what it would be like in reality and if it doesn't work out as planned and becomes an end-run around the policies, as the nominator predicts, then we can revisit this at a later date. Them From Space 02:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• I feel this MFD is somewhat premature. The project is evidentely still under construction, I don't feel we should act like inspectors. It's a new project, it's exploring a possibly new approach to working on articles that don't quite come up to scratch to be in mainspace yet. We should welcome new ways to expand our articles, instead of shooting them down before they can even stand up. Time will tell if this project has potential, but we need to give it that time first. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep, let the Incubator incubate, there are plenty of eyes on this project/process. In addition to Fritzpoll and GTBacchus, who have written assurances above, there are a number of responsible editors working to build it up and others with a more cautious view. Flatscan ( talk) 04:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Seems to be a very good alternative to individual userspace. Will promote collaborative and collegial editing to fix and improve articles. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This is in line with something I'd been thinking about and I'd like to see how it works out. -- Marc Kupper| talk 06:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now. This sort of project is has the potential for serious problems with accountability and WP:OWNership. However, this project is also all of 9 days old. It's too early to judge yet whether such problems will actually develop, and they haven't showed up yet. The best course is to give this time to demonstrate that it can work without problems – and bring it back later if the problems actually show up. — Gavia immer ( talk) 06:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep Holy crap! What an awful page! Why on earth would we want a project dedicated to improving articles to where they are acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines! We certainly don't want to improve articles, now do we? Off with their 'eads... seriously, must we delete something as useful as this?-- Jayron 32 06:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep At this stage, I could not compare it to the article canvass squad - which is a place that should be closed down. Those people actually seem to do some work on articles. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 06:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep with a rueful tone. I see a lot of people promising that if the incubator gets out of hand that we can 'shut it down later'. I don't think that experience has borne that out. I have a nagging fear that should this be used inappropriately it will be very difficult to adjust behavior based on outside criticism. but the idea is laudable and we shouldn't spend our time at MfD trying to control which project does what. Protonk ( talk) 07:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep I don't believe this will work – I've been around long enough to know the signs of something that will begin in a brief flurry of activity, before drifting into a pet-project of three or four people before fizzling out ( WP:RFF, anyone?) – but that's no reason not to give it a try. –  iride scent 21:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Good points. That is my biggest concern too, which I have brought up repeatedly. Look at: Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit I think the reason why WP:Article Rescue Squadron has survived is because there is some feeling of impending deadline, whereas Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit had none, and if WP:Incubator is not careful with the articles the choose to attempt to fix, it will meet the fate of Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit and other well meaning projects. Ikip ( talk) 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Keep Will it work? I don't know, but then I didn't think Wikipedia would work so what do I know? There;'s a lot of energy at the moment - I'm exhausted just reading the discussions. Let it run for a few weeks, then evaluate it.-- SPhilbrick T 01:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Weak keep In light of some of the previous comments here, I think a "wait and see" attitude would be most prudent here. I think some good things can come of such a project, and I doubt that it will result in that much more fancruft/bad articles, etc., so long as WP:N and WP:V are followed. -- Eastlaw ^talk ⁄  _contribs 06:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep. At least give it a chance. The idea of a shared collaborative non-mainspace place for bringing articles up to scratch is a good alternative to simply deleting articles that could turn into decent encyclopedic entries. If it doesn't work, we can deal with that later, but I see no reason not to first find out whether this will be a success.-- Michig ( talk) 10:38, 20 September 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.