Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nominal group technique

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Userfy to User:Blue Tie/Nominal group technique. Xoloz 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Nominal group technique

This is not really cognizable as a Proposal at all, it's just one sentence and an external link. The idea should instead be brought up at the Village Pump for discussion. See here for the genesis of this page, which has simply sat there for over a week, and even attracted opposition as a distraction. Its a potentially interesting idea, but it needs to actually be developed as a poposal to bear the {{Proposal}} designation.

• Delete Userfy (as nominator). NB: I do not believe that this nomination qualifies as a poor one under Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Prerequisites, item 2 - this is not "a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion"; it is simply a sentence, and there is no extant discussion, on its own talk page or at the place where creating this page was first contemplated (linked to in the nomination above). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Update: Userfy, per Radiant's response to YechielMan, below. 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, why not? Good faith policy proposal that needs some more expansion. I've seen plenty of those and we generally give them time to develop rather than deleting them. >Radiant< 14:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: So, you'd support me creating a page called Wikipedia:User summary warning, with just the sentence "It has been proposed that the `Reminder: You have not provided an edit summary. If you click Save again, your edit will be saved without one` warning be turned on by default and only disableable by editing user preferences", and applying {{Proposal}} to it? (And yes, I think that is a legit proposal worth making, but I wouldn't make it in the way just described.) Perhaps you can explain this and this (among others; these are the two I have watchlisted)? Why are your one-liners "Proposals" while the well-developed documents of others aren't? Why is it "Historical" when it hasn't even yet been advertised (because it's still being drafted) by the author, when that isn't you, but it isn't "Historical" when it already has been advertised by you, but mostly ignored, and even labelled distracting and pointless (in longer verbiage) by others in the discussion which led to the page's creation? I don't really care about the page; I only MfD'd it because it appears to serve no purpose and to have not even enough buy-in from people deeply involved in the issue it attempts to address for most of them to even bother commenting (positively anyway) on its existence, much less develop it. I'd like to see some rationale consistency, though. PS: "Historical" would be okay, I guess, except there's really "no there there". Why archive a one-sentence "Proposal" as having historical value? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd support you in that, and would probably note it is {{historical}} if there's little or no feedback on it after a few weeks. I wouldn't delete it. >Radiant< 07:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Userfy to Radiant!'s page because he created it, or tag historical. YechielMan 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, however, that this isn't my proposal; the proposal was made by Blue Tie on a talk page; I merely copied it to the Wikipedia namespace to allow further expansion. He has been busy in the past week but said he'd get around to it. I have no objection to userfying, but put it in his space please. >Radiant< 07:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy to a subpage of Radiant's Blue Tie's userpage. Nothing in the proposal which actually explains how it would work on Wikipedia (given that we have no "large sheet of paper, a whiteboard, etc."). No specifics as to whether this might apply to AfD, or edit wars, or arbitration cases, or elections for admin-ship, or the many other different activities in which we "find consensus". More "disputed" tags than inline citations in the referenced article explaining NGT. No explanation of how the added steps (brainstorm definitions of the concept, then get everyone's solution, then cluster them into overarching themes, then categorize them and ascribe matching sub-headings, then everyone assigns ranks, then the leader calculates scores and sorts lowest-scores-to-top) could work more quickly or more accurately or more comprehensively than the current range of methods. (In fact I imagine that nothing would ever get accomplished if we actually tried this methodology.) One comment on the talk page. No indication that this has ever received enough discussion to be in Wikipedia: projectspace. This belongs on the Village Pump if it's intended to be WP-wide, or on the talk pages of specific process pages. Barno 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Per above. >Radiant< 07:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Revised target of userfication per Radiant. Barno 13:43, 19 April 2007 (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.