Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SmokeyJoe (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 2 July 2018 (→‎Speedy redirect: post support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

When is deletion of drafts and userpages acceptable?

Recent votes in various MfD discussions seem to indicate that there is a lack of consensus as to when it is appropriate to delete drafts and userpages. It seems to me that a large cause of the lack of consensus is ambiguity in the policies that address these issues, including WP:CSD, WP:STALE, and WP:UP. The lack of clarity is resulting in editors making wildly varied arguments, and while some of this is natural, the degree to which this is the case at MfD greatly exceeds that at AfD or RfD, for example. Furthermore, these variations seem to some degree to be the result of disagreements of philosophy, particularly about what the purpose the userspace serves, what purpose drafts serve, what purpose sandboxes serve, when deletion is appropriate, and numerous others. In order to shed light on this issue, I have compiled a list of questions which I hope will delve to the heart of this issue, that our discussion of them may shed light on these issues.

This is not a policy proposal, although discourse here may demonstrate the need for another RfC to propose policy. Rather, I wish to gather the opinions of various editors on the following questions. Some have more obvious answers than others, but I believe all to be worth asking and considering:

  1. What is (or should be) the difference between a draftspace draft and a userspace draft?
    1. What is the benefit of distinguishing between the draftspace and the userspace for CSD G13, and should CSD G13 be revised in any way to change its scope?
  2. What standards and/or uses make a userpage "useful to the Project" and, conversely, what failures make it "detrimental to the Project"?
    1. At what point does a useless draft become a violation of CSD U5 and WP:NOTWEBHOST? For the purposes of CSD U5, what is a "plausible draft"?
    2. Can a stale userpage (one that has not been edited in more than a year) of an inactive user (someone who has not edited in more than a year) be considered "useful to the Project"?
    3. Does a userpage's uselessness alone warrant deletion at MfD or any other venue, or must it also pose some detriment to the Project, such as by qualifying for speedy deletion?
    4. If the answer to the above question is "depends", what other criteria should be considered in deciding about deletion?
  3. What distinguishes a sandbox from other userpages, and in what ways, if any, should policy treat them differently?
  4. Do drafts that serve no use to the Project and have no potential to be improved to the point of usefulness warrant deletion?
    1. Should the answer to the above question vary depending on whether said draft is in the userspace of the draftspace?
    2. What things give a draft potential for improvement or, conversely, deprive it of said potential? Is notability one of these things and, if so, how should we reconcile that with WP:NMFD?
  5. For the purposes of policy, what is the difference between blanking and soft deletion, and which is preferable in what situations? When are they preferable to normal deletion?
  6. Is it appropriate to move a stale userspace draft to draftspace if you have no intent of working on it?
  7. When, if ever, is it appropriate to ask an active editor to do something with a stale draft?

Discussion is not limited to these questions, and should include any and all pertinent topics. These are merely the questions that have been bouncing around in my head these past several days and as I was drafting this RfC.

Pinging to Legacypac, SmokeyJoe, Davey2010, Rhododendrites, Egaoblai and Robert McClenon, who have participated in multiple MfD discussions recently. Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draftspace vs. userspace

RE: 1. "What is (or should be) the difference between a draftspace draft and a userspace draft?"

In my opinion, there is no difference if it is tagged as an AFC submission. A userspace draft may be moved to draft space, and this is encouraged. Drafts that are not labeled as submitted and are in user space are the property of the user. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DraftSpace is a holding ground for junk produced by inept newcompers. It exists to stop stormwater crap flowing into mainspace. There are volunteers who rescue the small proportation of worthwhile submissions, the rest is just a problem. G13 clears abandonded stuff after 6 months abandoned. Draftspace is only for article drafts. 99% of what is in draftsspace is worthless or worse than worthless.
UserSpace is for Users with a contribution history. Leeway for use of userspace is held to be in proportion of the user's useful mainspace edits. Experienced users should use userspace instead of draftspace for drafts, however some very few experienced users use draftspace aware of the routine deletion at 6 months. In userspace, drafts are intermixed with notes and other non-draft things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^^ this, more or less. Can elaborate if this carries on and it becomes prudent to do so. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So the only purpose of draftspace is to deliberately delude new users into thinking that they're making a contribution when the intent is to eventually delete it all? That seems...ethically dubious. And not good for the goal of bringing people into the project. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David Eppstein, I am afraid yes, that is my assessment. The intent is to waylay the inept spammers and the generally inept and keep them in the AfC draftspace holding pen. If reviewers find things good, they move it to mainspace, otherwise the newcomers and their works are left to wallow out of sight of normal Wikipedians, and they remain discouraged to even fiddle with mainspace. They seem to think that the master reviewers make the decisions. I know this both from observation of draft histories and their authors, and in real life knowing some people who went open-eyed to an editathon. They wrote historical biographies, had zero on-wiki interactions, and the drafts were never submitted and later G13-ed. They didn't return. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the most general sense, draftspace is the place for a draft more for collaboration while a userspace draft is more private, though anyone may work on any draft. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think SmokeyJoe is painting with too broad of a brush, but honestly? I think draftspace exists for two reasons: 1) it's more clear to new users that something beginning with "Draft" is not an article and may never be; and 2) putting AfC in Wikipedia talk was never ideal, and using the Draft namespace meant AfC contributors didn't have editing percentages show a huge userspace chunk. In a perfect world, Draft might be used for someone new seeking advice or collaboration from AfC, while established users working alone would user userspace until moving to main. ~ Amory (utc) 14:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amory is alluding the when WP:AfC by default put drafts as subpages of WT:AfC. The url, title, then began with “Wikipedia”, and that was thought to feed the inept paid editors adding promotional drafts. I think DraftsSpace, and before that the WT:AfC subpages space, and before that the WP:Article incubator are all bad ideas. DraftSpace’s existence is a net negative, although some good comes out of it if you ignore the costs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally agreed with SmokeyJoe. I have drafts that are very old but not ready for mainspace because they require some offline research. These should not be deleted, and are on notable topics. (I also have some WP:REFUNDed bios written by others and AfDed for notability, but which are potentially notable; this will require research in offline billiards-related sources, so it's a similar situation). This is nothing like the dreck that mostly fills the Draft namespace.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: 1.1 "What is the benefit of distinguishing between the draftspace and the userspace for CSD G13, and should CSD G13 be revised in any way to change its scope?"

Sufficiently increasing the scope of G13 is good because it will reduce the perceived need to keep draft space "clean" of crud. I don't perceive such a need, but I think some editors do. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
G13 covers draftspace annd AfC tagged userspace pages.
G13 should not be expanded to other things in userspace because random others' can not easily tell the difference between an old bad draft and other things not ever intended to be a draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Naturally, the draftspace had become more open to deletion while the userspace has remained less so. A better question is "should users, especially long-term established ones, be able to store personal drafts potentially indefinitely in the userspace?" — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no reason why we need to police non-AfC userspace. Our guidelines are perhaps overly-tailored to longterm practices of established editors, but that's not a reason to go after userspace needlessly. ~ Amory (utc) 14:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with SmokeyJoe. To elaborate, if there's a case-by-case need to "police" something in userspace, WP:MFD is already the fully-functional process for that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm strongly opposed to routine policing of userspace. For sure, there's stuff that doesn't belong there (copyvios, spam, etc), but these should be deleted on an as-needed basis and are already covered under the applicable WP:CSD clauses, and/or WP:MFD if none of those apply. To delete something in userspace just because it's stale is anathema to how this is supposed to work. I use my userspace to collect random ideas for articles I might want to write some day. American Bank Note Company Printing Plant sat in my userspace for over a year before I got to it. User:RoySmith/Fare evasion in public transit systems is over ten years old. I'd be pissed if anybody tried to delete that just because it hasn't germinated yet. I recently had the pleasure of approving Draft:John MacVane, which is an excellent addition to the encyclopedia. It sat in userspace for a year and a half before the author picked it up again; the encyclopedia would have missed a valuable contribution if that got deleted just because somebody thought it was stale. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. I've had proto-articles, or, rather, notes for an article, sit around for years. User:Donald Albury/Pine Island Canal is 4 years old, but I still think it can be made main-space worthy. Some other pages in my user space do not currently make the grade, and probably never will, but they take up very little space, and are not on public view. -- Donald Albury 14:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just found another example. National Moth Week was started three years ago, sat in user space for over a year, then in draft space for another two years. Somebody attempted to WP:G13 it, but fortunately it survived that because DferDaisy recently came along and found some good sources (thank you!) and now the encyclopedia has a nice, well-sourced, new article. WP:DEADLINE applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Utility of userpages

RE: 1.2 "Can a stale userpage (one that has not been edited in more than a year) of an inactive user (someone who has not edited in more than a year) be considered "useful to the Project"?"

In my opinion, sometimes yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Can you elaborate? Compassionate727 (T·C) 10:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The most obvious example that I can think of would be a useful essay about how to edit or collaborate in Wikipedia, which is still useful even if its author is inactive. Consideration could be given to moving it to WP space. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, certainly; great content may be contributed to a page in any namespace and remain unnoticed. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I see little harm in stale userpages. Relevant material should be G10d/G11d/U5d/etc. but if it ain't hurting anyone, let it be. Space isn't an issue. ~ Amory (utc) 14:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This question about "stale userpages" unfortunately conflates stale draft articles with actual Wikipedia:User pages. IMO a stale draft article in userspace (think "sandbox"), written by a currently inactive editor, would ideally be evaluated just like a stale article in the mainspace – that is, whenever it is encountered, it should be considered whether any part of it contains educational, encyclopedic information that should be kept and moved or merged to mainspace. If not, these pages should be deleted on the merits, not merely because the editor is inactive. (We have seen people come back from multi-year breaks, and some of them have turned into highly active editors.)
By contrast, the "stale userpages" that describe the editors themselves should be kept forever, because those pages will always be useful if someone is trying to figure out why someone made the edits that they did, etc.
Also, it's worth remembering that "useful to the project" is a bigger concept than "usable in an encyclopedia article". The history of my own sandboxes contain many "unusable" or "unencyclopedic" edits that are linked in bug reports. Those are "useful to the project" if you, like most of us, believe that having functional editing software is desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, though the keyword is "can". Depends on the content of the page. For a productive editor working (when they're around, which might end up being a return after 7 years away) on content that has sources and potential, the answer is clearly "yes". When it's some noob writing about their own band, no so much.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE 2.1

WP:U5 only applies where the owner (of a userpace page) has made few or no edits outside of user pages. WP:NOTWEBHOST, for these purposes, is too vague. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE 2.2 "What standards and/or uses make a userpage "useful to the Project" and, conversely, what failures make it "detrimental to the Project"?"

In my opinion, uselessness is not enough to warrant MFD. A zero is a zero. Delete if it has negative value, and there are a variety of factors that give negative value, including some to which Judge Stewart's test applies, such as being stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will comment at more length later. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do. I'm finding the matter of what exactly constitutes "stupid" to be controversial. Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is very subjective. If you need to ask, keep out of others userspace. You are likely to be far more trouble than helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is precisely because certain things are subjective that we require policies and guidelines. Absent any guidance, editors will take whatever action strikes them as most reasonable; the results will be inherently arbitrary and poorer-quality, because no one editor can be the sum of the entire community's experience, perspective and good judgement. This is why Wikipedia is a collaborative project: we know that we require each other's insights and guidance. Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, there is a better answer. User pages are detrimental if they match something at WP:UPNOT, which includes WP:NOT. Reasons outside that tend to be very subjective, or extremely weird but obvious when we see it. Not everything needs specific prohibition. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This doesn't quite clarify, however, since WP:NOT includes WP:NOTWEBHOST, the ambiguity of which some people use as a catch-all to suggest deleting all sorts of content from draft/userspace (i.e. as though existing and not being a worthy article is damaging to Wikipedia because of WP:NOTWEBHOST). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t think tight clarification is needed, but I suggest: NOTWEBHOST means use of Wikipedia for material for a purpose outside Wikipedia. That excludes nonsense. A wider definition is material not intended to benefit the project. That excludes low quality submissions. It excludes materials intended by the user as material to help the user in making future contributions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. One of my goals (probably my main goal) here was to more clearly define what WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:CSD#U5 entail. When is a draft not related to Wikipedia? When it's over a topic that isn't suitable for inclusion in mainspace? When it's an advertisement, or spam, or an autobiography? And what is an "egregious" NOTWEBHOST violation? What's the proper way to handle "not egregious" violations? Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the context of userspace, a draft is not related to Wikipedia if it is in no way connected to articles, talking about articles, wikimarkup, practicing formatting, reworking sentence fragments, understanding policies, interpreting essays, talking to other users, etc. (in other words, there's very little -- if it's a draft intended as an encyclopedia article there's no way it should be deleted with notwebhost as the rationale, because it's relevant to Wikipedia). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless the userpage is being used to host hatespeech, then frankly I think it's a the height of arrogance to presume that it's a good thing for users to police people's userspaces. If you, as an editor are in the position where you find yourself scanning userpages in order to delete them, then you might want to consider yourself, if what you are doing is "useful to the project". Egaoblai (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your decision to limit the exception to hate speech is contrary to policy (namely, a page should be deleted for violating any of the criteria for speedy deletion, not just G10), but I understand your general point. And indeed it is a valid question. Does anybody even use Category:Stale userspace drafts for any reason? If not, then I arguably need not bother attempting to reduce the 35,000 page backlog.
I say arguably because it's not entirely true; I have found multiple candidates for speedy deletion among the 100 or so oldest pages, and this presumably becomes worse the more recent we search. That does need to be addressed. Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reviewed and deleted 1000s of pages from Category:Stale userspace drafts. You need to go there to understand the link SPAM, attack pages, and other NOT that exists and should be nuked. Occasionally I even find something to send to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A userpage is useful to the project in the way it gives users a place to practice, experiment, draft, learn, create resources for themselves, etc. It doesn't have to be useful to anyone else. It's detrimental to the project when the content could otherwise be deleted by CSD (i.e. copyright problems, attack pages, grossly promotional material, etc.). There are some other cases that should be determined when taking a broad understanding of the user's activity into consideration, like WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK (i.e. we give a whole lot more latitude to experienced editors to absolutely use their userspace as a social network/profile, but tend to view anyone who only does that sort of thing as NOTHERE). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I lean in Robert McClenon's direction, and don't feel much need to elaborate.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE 2.3

Does a userpage's uselessness alone warrant deletion at MfD or any other venue... ? No, because uselessness is subjective. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Uselessness, usually coming with "worthless" and "harmless" is a zero value assessment. An MfD discussion has costs, volunteer time, processing, the creation of the mfd page itself. MfD-ing a merely useless userpage is a clear net negative. There are further potential negatives, such as perceived rudeness to the user, and the unwelcoming to their return when they find their notes deleted. If you think its status live in userspace is a small negative, that's what {{Inactive userpage blanked}} is for. It can be done, and undone, unilaterally, without any of the deletion polciy and process overheads. If and when the user returns, they can find their contribution history, hiding a contribution history from a past constructive user without good reason is very rude. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


RE. 3. "What distinguishes a sandbox from other userpages, and in what ways, if any, should policy treat them differently?"

The user sandbox is the placed recommended for users to play in. Subject to the user being a contributor, they may do nearly anything in a sandbox. I wish that serious drafting was strongly recommended against, in the main sandbox, because it leads to an article with a really messy edit history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is of course possible to incorporate that statement into policy, and I for one would support it. However, my guess is that most people who create drafts in sandbox (such as myself of yore) are entirely unaware of the policy anyway. We also don't so far have a mechanism for enforcing or facilitating this; do you have a suggestion?
The other thing is that, because we can assume this to be nigh-unenforceable, we may be better served defining a way for us editors to distinguish between sandboxes and other pages. Perhaps we should consider anything that gives the appearance of being an attempt to produce an article to be a draft, whereas something that is an experiment with wiki mark-up, template syntax or the like is a sandbox? Obviously, I've found instances that are combinations of these and other things, meaning some cases will be quite ambiguous, but would what I've outlined at least be an acceptable start? Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any user page can be a sandbox. I can't think of any reason to differentiate. There is a default sandbox at /sandbox, but WP:ABOUTSAND is clear that you can designate any other page as a sandbox. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aye. I have over 20 of them (not counting more formal drafts, and log pages where I keep track of stuff, and so on). Some of my sandboxes date back to something like 2008, but they are not trash, and hold things like code snippets I want to retain, template coding ideas I may develop further, experiments I run periodically to see whether changes to MediaWiki have finally fixed a bug/misfeature that affects our rendered output, etc. It's no one's business at all whether they personally think any of these pages are "useful"; if they think one is somehow detrimental, they have existing MfD process to use.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the page gets moved and subsequently deleted, passing editors are more likely to replace a sandbox with {{user sandbox}} and tag a different page with {{db-g8}} Otherwise, not much; /sandbox is the default playspace, and is linked for everyone (ah the halcyon days when it was a preference option). I suppose the sandbox is more likely to survive with a clearly inappropriate draft article if it looks like the user is experimenting with things like citations or templates, and I'm okay with that, but I don't think we want to distinguish so much between userspace items based on titles. One persons sandbox is another's tmp is another's test is another's insertarticlenamehere. ~ Amory (utc) 16:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of drafts

RE: 4. "Do drafts that serve no use to the Project and have no potential to be improved to the point of usefulness warrant deletion?"

Yes. WP:CSD#G13 is the answer. Leave G13s to User:HasteurBot. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: 4.1. "Should the answer to the above question vary depending on whether said draft is in the userspace of the draftspace?"

Answer: No. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. There is no reason to delete someone else's userspace page that you have decided is a "draft," so long as it is not detrimental. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, because what constitutes a page "serv[ing] no use to the Project and hav[ing] no potential to be improved to the point of usefulness" is subjective. Quite a slanted question. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and it already does; at this point, this is perennial at WT:CSD. G13 requires userspace to be an AfC draft, and G6 requires it to be just the article wizard text. I continue to see no need to throw G13 at the rest of the lot. ~ Amory (utc) 16:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongly agree with Rhododendrites, Godsy, and Amorymeltzer.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: 4.2. "What things give a draft potential for improvement or, conversely, deprive it of said potential? Is notability one of these things and, if so, how should we reconcile that with WP:NMFD?"

The improvement of drafts is a subjective thing. If you can improve someone else's draft, do so. Otherwise, look elsewhere for something useful to do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing to reconcile WP:NMFD. Notability is not required for drafts. MfD is not for testing notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaning SmokeyJoe's way. In particular, WP:N is a standard applied only to whether a topic can have its own article [in mainspace]. Thus, any given draft may be good material for inclusion in an extant article as a section, or as an entry in a list article. We already have sufficient policy about this at WP:NOT (not original thought, not promotion, not advocacy, not indiscriminate trivia, etc., etc.) So something conceptually akin to a notability criterion is already in play, but it is markedly looser; it's not about stand-alone page creation, but whether the content could be integrated encyclopedically in some form at all.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NMFD is nonsense because it does not reflect what we actually do at MFD. Yes we should delete the useless - by G13 or another Gx or MFD when activity on the draft is causing problems. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NMFD is simple necessary and logical, and the community’s clarity was refreshing. There is more of a problem with inept mfd nominators barely less inept that the authors of the worthless drafts. When you nominate, state the actual problem above and beyond poorly demonstrated notability, look to WP:NOT for a hundred suggestions. BLPCHILD, and NOR are also good reasons. “Doesn’t look notable to me” nominations should be speedy closed and the nominator TROUTed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely agree on this. nominating drafts for notability concerns is silly.Egaoblai (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Afraid I very much disagree. Notability seems to me an absolutely key factor in determining potential and NMFD, which isn’t a policy or guidance, rather a consensus from one discussion, makes no sense to me at all. Why on earth wouldn’t you consider Notability, whether or not it is well demonstrated in the draft, as part of a wider consideration? KJP1 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad to see I'm not the only who feel this way. Notability is determined solely by sourcing, assessed entirely independently of a page's demonstration of it. If a subject isn't notable, a draft contains no potential to ever make it to the mainspace. I can understand arguments that we shouldn't delete drafts solely on notability issues (even if I don't necessarily agree). But I don't understand how we can that say that the notability of potential articles is outside consideration when notability is the primary reason that articles are deleted. Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly, and the recent case where I withdrew the nomination to delete after another reviewer had demonstrated the potential of the draft, including its Notability, was a good example of that. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally concur, modulo what I said just above this (still under 4.2).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NMFD is fine as is. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Primefac note I was specifically invited to this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soft deletion

RE: 5. "For the purposes of policy, what is the difference between blanking and soft deletion, and which is preferable in what situations? When are they preferable to normal deletion?"

I personally dislike the concept of blanking in general and would prefer soft deletion in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blanking is the same as soft deletion. It should be used when something is not, or no longer useful, but there is no actual reason to delete that can be articulated from WP:NOT or WP:UPNOT for userspace. Blanking is preferable for deletion when the content is not in any way offensive, and the content's undesirability in remaining live is of low importance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From a policy standpoint, blanking and soft deletion are the same, at least currently. From a technical standpoint they are not. Is one strictly preferable to the other? Or does it vary depending on context? Compassionate727 (T·C) 10:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically they are the same. Maybe you need to define “soft deletion”. I take it to mean the as meant in Wikipedia:Soft deletion (failed proposal). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, my bad. I was not aware this had a history. I was referring to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Soft deletion, which is essentially what CSD G13 does. The page is deleted, but may be restored on the request of anyone. Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s a bad shortcut. “soft deletion” is a term that confuses due to different uses. G13 deletions are immediately [WP:REFUND]]able on request. Blanking and redirect g is pseudodeletion. Let’s try to agree on simple common language. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think an underlying question here is how it relates to userspace. There are practically no scenarios when blanking is necessary in userspace, and no reasons for soft deletion. "Usefulness" shouldn't be part of it (i.e. do not go into other users' userspaces, decide what's useful, and blank it if you decide it's not). There are a very small number of circumstances I can think of when blanking might be prudent, and all of them are predicated on the user being inactive for some period of time: when material is quite promotional but stops short of CSD, BLP without sources that stops short of being an attack page, and an unedited copy of an article. There may be others, but the key is that they could be understood to be problematic for reasons beyond "usefulness". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blanking or deleting pages in userspace that are not useful saves rechecking them again and again which wastes time. It's a necessary part of the process to get rid of the spam, copyvio, and attack pages - you have to also clear the clutter out or it just gets harder and harder to sort out the problem pages. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And, again, who defines "useful" and how do you measure "usefulness" of a user's notes, resources, links, fragments, sentences, or whole drafts? How does the existence of a sandbox make it harder to remove spam? If you are just talking about pages with templates that put them into categories, then those templates and/or their usage can be changed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To start with, we can give an example of what isn't a useful userpage: any sandbox belonging to someone who has been inactive for five years, presumably never to return, clearly isn't getting any use. More to the point, it is theoretically possible to simply remove {{userspace draft}} from abandoned drafts. But before we resolve to do that, perhaps we should consider why that template is added to userpages in the first place. I don't entirely know. I assume it is in part to warn readers who somehow find the page by accident that what they are reading isn't an article; if that is the case, simply removing that message would be ill-adivsed. We could theoretically add a |nocat= parameter, though. Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On what basis are they "presumably never to return"? That's your assumption that if someone doesn't edit for 5 years they never will? Disagree. Are you talking about when a user has died? In that edge case, if you for some reason find their userspace content offensive to your sensibilities, then I suppose it's not a problem to blank it? Here, as elsewhere, however, there is zero benefit whatsoever to deleting, so what's the point? No comment on templates at this time. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Movement of drafts

RE: 6. "Is it appropriate to move a stale userspace draft to draftspace if you have no intent of working on it?"

That depends on the working definition of "stale". By any normal meaning in the real world, the answer would be no. Do you offer stale bread to others? "Old" is not synonymous with "stale". I wish the word "stale" could be expunged from WP:UP, its introduction has never been helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I defined stale above as a draft that has not been edited in more than a year. Assume that definition holds. Compassionate727 (T·C) 10:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s a bad definition. It is not standard English. By the same definition, most of mainspace would be stale. I take stale to mean that the information contained is no longer accurate, as happens on recent events topics. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a valid point. But the reason it isn't useful to label articles as stale is that even if they aren't being edited, they are (presumably) being read. Even if they aren't, we wouldn't actually go to the trouble to delete them, because the end goal of Wikipedia is to be a collection of knowledge, and those articles are contributing towards that. A draft that isn't being edited, on the other hand, is presumably not suitable for inclusion in the article space. And because it isn't being edited it will never get there. If it won't ever reach the main space, it isn't serving a purpose, and the benefit of keeping a draft that isn't doing anything is naught. The reason I ask this is question is that, supposedly, moving an article to draft space will cause it to gain attention from other editors, but I doubt this is true. Doing so would also make it eligible for G13 deletion after six months, which may or may not be a good thing. I want others' opinions on these two points. Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"A draft that isn't being edited, on the other hand, is presumably not suitable for inclusion in the article space." This absolutely is not the case. Many drafters simply get frustrated at AFC's rejections. I, personally have saved quite a few articles from draftspace that hadn't been edited in a while, including ones such as Geological_Society_of_Sri_Lanka which had been nominated for deletion under the reasoning that "this will never be notable". I am not sure why there is this prevailing view here that drafts are presumed to be bad and that the reviewers of AFC are infallible. The whole point of a Wiki is for collaborative work and the strictness of AFC, alongside the view that drafts are presumed bad unless they are being actively worked on, is actively turning away editors and rejecting valid articles and information from the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talkcontribs) 12:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First off, I speak of userspace drafts in this question, not draftspace drafts, which is an important distinction. Addressing the issue of AfC, most editors acknowledge that AfC has many problems in this regard. However, most also acknowledge that the majority of new submissions are fundamentally not suitable for Wikipedia: i.e., they fail notability guidelines, serve only to promote their subject, or some other such issue. That this is the case was firmly established during WP:ACREQ. Returning to the userspace, the reason I assume there to be a difference is that articles there were never submitted to AfC (or they would have become eligible for G13 deletion). This means the draft was abandoned before the creator thought it ready for publication, and my own experience shows it to for the most part be the case.
But I suppose you are right, ultimately. Perhaps the first step when dealing with stale drafts should be to check for potential (as opposed to demonstrated) notability, and if the subject appears to be notable, move it to mainspace? Articles about notable topics are seldom deleted at AfD simply because they fail to demonstrate said notability; usually any articles that are nominated are then improved by other editors to save them. Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is a good idea. Some people may have a problem with articles with grammar mistakes or whatever being added to mainspace, but I can think of no good reason why an article in draft, that can be shown to be verifiable and notable should not be moved there. There are many wikipedia editors who love to do all the grammar and formatting work, so why keep WP:V and WP:N passing drafts buried and at risk of possible deletion when they could be easily worked on by the community at large. Regarding AFC, I think that many of the reviewers are working under the impression that they must reject articles about notable subjects if the article doesn't have enough sources.Egaoblai (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“Stale” is an emotive word and usually it is inaccurate. Give up this misuse of the word. Just call the pages “unedited for six months”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the user is inactive for some period of time and it would pass AfC, then yes (which is not to say I think it should go through AfC). However, it should not be moved if it would not (or does not) pass AfC, as that would just be an end-run around deletion norms. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rhododentrites: Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts#Stale userspace drafts point #8 states that userspace drafts that appear notable but aren't ready for mainspace may be moved to draftspace to attract attention from editors. My assumption was that it won't actually gather more attention; is this accurate? Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand that page's "if you don't feel comfortable readying it for mainspace." Either one thinks it's fit to be an article (to use a phrase from WP:STALE) or does not. If someone doesn't understand how to do the very little amount of work required to move a "fit" page to mainspace, one shouldn't be making decision about other people's userspace or drafts. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is referring to instances where the subject has potential but the draft itself is of insufficient quality. That said, any viable draft about a viable subject should be moved to mainspace if it wouldn't be deleted in order to draw attention from editors. Honestly, I think that entire guideline is junk. I think WP:STALE should be tweaked in a few places to make the process we MfDers support more clear, and then that section should just point there. Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if a draft or a userspace page is dormant (a better word than stale) and you believe it is about a notable and verifiable subject, then move it to mainspace. Use you own judgement here. Moving a dormant userspace page to draft won't do anything, as it AFC reviewers don't improve pages. if the draft has been rejected, but you believe it to be a notable and verifiable subject as evidenced by sources, then move it to mainspace.Egaoblai (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moving a stale/abandoned userpage draft into Draft space gives it a fighting chance. The person who moves it may move it forward with edits. Anyone else trying to start a Draft or Mainspace page at that title will see the Draft and may choose to build on it. Users are more likely to find it in search. Users running AWB and Dab fixes may notice it. Finally, it will be seen by users and Admins processing or reviewing G13 elegible pages. Also the movement will remind the original creator about the page if they are paying attention. Legacypac (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. The idea that moving something to draftspace makes it so more editors than in userspace never really happened, and the RfCs about draftspace, combined with your own efforts, have driven the nail into that coffin and turned the namespace into a place for new users creating drafts that will shortly thereafter be submitted/moved and nothing else. Moving a draft from userspace to draftspace doesn't serve any purpose unless one wishes to qualify it for CSD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a draft or a userspace page is dormant and the editor is dormant, then fine. I got slapped for moving a dormant userspace draft to draftspace per the wording of WP:STALEDRAFT at the time, when the user was semi-active. They took offence that I was rearranging their furniture, and made me put things back the way they found them. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Under the current system, no. This allows deletionists to semi-game the system and open up pages to speedy deletion within a few months. A way to make old drafts more visible (and searchable) to those wishing to work on them would be fine, but there is no good reason to waste time and delete old, stagnant drafts. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A win-win alternative is to tag and categories promising drafts. There is no need to move to draftspace. It has no advantage to the promising draft. Normal editors don’t browse draftspace because 99% of draftspace pages are worthless or worse than worthless. If the desire is to expose the promising draft, that calls for a navigation aid. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps a new category Category:Abandoned drafts assessed as having potential, or something of the like? Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draft reviewers do at least sometimes improve drafts as they encounter them in draft space . I don't know how many others do, but I routinely improve them when I can even I cannot immediately improve them enough for mainspace. The virtue of Hasteurbot is that I then see them ever 6 months, and I upgrade a few of them to articles each time. We need major improvements in draft space, such as categorization by subject, and one of the virtues of that will be to encourage others to do likewise. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My answer to this question would be "no", because it's a recipe for PoV-based targeting of the work of "enemies" if they go dormant for a while. E.g., I have drafts that were older than what's contemplated here and I then took a year-long wikibreak. If I'd returned to find that my work – much of which required days and days of full-time research – had been nuked, I would have waxed sorely pissed. They only way I can see to make something like this practical is if drafts moved in this way a) can be moved back, by anyone, and can be REFUNDed by anyone. And maybe also that such a move to draft space cannot be made by anyone with a history of dispute over what's in the content or dispute with the editor who wrote it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asking active editors

RE: 7. "When, if ever, is it appropriate to ask an active editor to do something with a stale draft?"

I think never, stale drafts are best ignored.
If you are at all inclined to ask another user, sure, do so. You may be considered a busybody. How do you like your neighbour asking you about your untidiness in your backyard? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If people are looking to delete a draft, it might be considered a courtesy to inform the editor or a relevant wikiproject.Egaoblai (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nah. No reason to unless it's problematic for some reason beyond it being old/low-quality. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My experience has been that most users are happy to be reminded and often finish it off for mainspace. I've been thanked for just moving good pages to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, my experience is similar to Legacypac's.
Also, in general, I don't think it would be appropriate to say that users shouldn't ask draft creators about such things, as Wikipedia literally runs off of discursive conversation, but if we want to leave such a provision out of procedures, I wouldn't be strongly opposed. Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Compassionate727 sometimes I just make some improvement to the promising userspace drafts I find. That reminds the user in a gentle way and gets the page off the Stale list for 12 months. Also User:Primefac Legacypac (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Legacypac: Would you say this is typical? Compassionate727 (T·C) 05:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there should be a rule against leaving such messages, but I'd rather not see codified a process that explicitly suggests it. My reasoning is that it's not appropriate to talk to other people about their drafts, but because the act of trawling other active users' userspace for things you might be able to delete is a net negative. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If an contributor is active (i.e. has edited in the last year), especially if it is a userspace draft in question, their drafts should be left alone. Above all else, active, and especially those who are also long-standing, editors should be allowed to retain drafts as long as they desire. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this means asking the author of the stale draft, then it's appropriate any time you feel like it. "Hey, I like that piece you've half-finished about foo. Are you going to continue? If not, mind if I move it to draftspace for others to work on, or take it to my userspace instead?" Or "It's been two years, and this band seems even less likely to ever become notable now than then, since they broke up 7 months ago. I would suggest putting {{db-user}} on this."
If it means asking some other user to "go after" the page, then I don't think that's appropriate it all. If the author has been gone for years, it might make sense to ask another editor with a known interest in the topic if they think they can do something with the abandoned content.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Threaded discussion

User:Compassionate727 - Good questions. I will insert some comments in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert McClenon, yes good questions but you've made an awful mess of it for others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the original formatting at — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talkcontribs) 02:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion is already a mess after two replies. I'd reorganize it but no time today. Each question needs a equal sign header and replies. Legacypac (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cleaned up and trouted. I'll get around to the various replies in due course. Compassionate727 (T·C) 10:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Compassionate727: There's guidance on this at WP:STALEDRAFT and Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, contradictory in places. I had a brief foray into cleaning up stale drafts, made a bit of a mess of it and resolved to keep away in the future! I am glad to see this being discussed here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a lot of questions here so I'm just going to give some general thoughts. There seems to be a certain zealousness to deleting drafts and increasingly people's userspaces, and I don't think people here realise how bizarre and overbearing this seems to others. For drafts, 6 months is not a long time at all in someone's life and to think that a new editor can put aside a draft for 6 months and then come back to find it wiped is just infuriating to those of us who want WP to be a place that encourages new editors. Could someone explain the reasoning behind deleting drafts after such a short time?

One thing that I have discovered is that the G13 tool, is sometimes uses as a blunt instrument, whereby admins (or whoever it is that deletes pages there) simply delete drafts regardless of their merit. Here is an example: I was looking at some drafts and found one I thought seemed notable. I checked back the next day and found it gone. When I asked the deleter why they deleted it they said "because it was 6 months old". They never read it or even glanced it, they simply deleted content based on blindly following a "rule". How is this a good for the encyclopedia?

As far as drafts, we also have to consider that the AFC reviewers are continuing to be ultra pedantic in their rejections (yes they are still rejecting based on "formatting") and that many abandoned drafts are absolutely notable, but just aren't making it to mainspace but would easily pass AFD if they were moved there. It's clear just from looking through old drafts that editors are just giving up in frustration, especially when AFC reviewers are giving them the old "this isn't notable" boilerplate, without specifically advising them how to make it better.

I'm a fairly new user, so perhaps I can offer a perspective from an outsider's eyes, but there seems to be this siege mentality here, where people speak in terms of being under attack from new editors and drafts and bad articles. People would rather make new rules to throw out things that have good potential rather than work with people to make things better. My view is that if something isn't libelous or damaging or hatespeech, then editors should be given as much leeway as possible to work with it. And the time spent hand-wringing and drawing up plans to delete even more content could be better served working with editors to make better articles. This is the key flaw in draftspace: it doesn't serve the Wiki process (working together) at all.Egaoblai (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfC has its problems, everyone acknowledges this. But let's assume for a moment that correcting AfC is outside the scope of this particular RfC. Let's focus on G13 deletions. The reason they exist is that articles languishing in draft space are presumably unsuitable for inclusion in the main space in their current state, and because nobody is improving them, they won't ever reach such a state. In your example, if you found the subject of the draft to be notable, you should have moved it to mainspace. Deletion is not cleanup, so articles will not be deleted because of their poor or otherwise incomplete state, provided they don't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Perhaps administrators should be expected to do a search for notability before deleting drafts under G13? And I mean a search of the Internet, not just the draft. Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know the exact "rules" here, but if an article is nominated for G13, then surely the deleting admin should at the very least look at the page before deleting it, wouldn't you agree? Egaoblai (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I'm aware, that isn't a requirement. But I'm not an admin, and I don't often interact with G13 drafts. Can someone else weigh in on this? If it isn't I think it should be. Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Articles are not eligible for G13. Words and language are important to be correct for discussions aimed at refining complicated matters. Please take care, G13 is only for drafts, drafts are not articles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is the issue - G13 elegible pages get saved all the time. but there is also a significant backlog of G13 postponed pages. Pretty much every page needs an interested champion. There are thousands of drafts that sit abandoned which no one bothers to work on after the creator quits. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Legacypac: I wasn't aware anybody even delayed G13 deletions at this point, and have no idea how that works or what it ultimately results in. Can you elaborate on this aspect of the issue? Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Compassionate727 If postponed using the AFCH script they go in Category:AfC postponed G13 and if postponed with a comment or any other edit they just stay off User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report for another 6 months. Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE:"There are thousands of drafts that sit abandoned which no one bothers to work on after the creator quits". What makes this a problem exactly? Those drafts may be picked up by other editors in the future. Egaoblai (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone else find this impossible to parse? I've tried three times today at various stages of participation, and I still have no idea what to say and where. ~ Amory (utc) 01:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amorymeltzer: I'm not aware that anyone else has, but I can't say I'd be surprised. If you have responses to specific questions, you can post them in those relevant sections, if you like. If it's just a general comment, or even if you'd just prefer, you can also place your comment here. Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is possible to parse. Maybe this will help: it is a completely open-ended request for comments, like a brainstorming session. Something may come of it, but this RfC itself is unactionable. You’ve caught the talking stick, or the fragile conch, just say whatever comes to mind, later posts may make sense of it or may move in a different direction. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^ Yes. That exactly. Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For context, it basically arose because I've encountered a plethora of ambiguities in my handling of stale drafts and in MfD discussions that are essentially related to the same one or two issus, and I felt it made sense to address them all simultaneously. Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it is a completely open-ended request for comments, like a brainstorming session Okay that makes sense, thanks for the clarifications. ~ Amory (utc) 09:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few more questions

Discussion has mostly come to a halt, but there are a few questions that have caused disagreement and not been fully discussed. I'll list some of the remaining questions here.

(1) The scope of WP:CSD#U5 and WP:NOTWEBHOST remains quite ambiguous. Over the past two days, I have nominated 60 userspace drafts for speedy deletion under U5 (many also as G11). All of them were deleted. A large chunk were deleted by RHaworth, but at least four or five different admins took part in some of these. I'm actually somewhat perplexed by this, because my error rate tends to be higher than 0%. I can outline the criteria I used when deciding whether to apply CSD U5 or blank. When nominating the page, I checked for two things: 1) the subject of the draft was indisputably not notable and would never be notable OR the draft failed to demonstrate notability and also served primarily or exclusively to promote the subject, and 2) the author of the draft was a single-purpose editor, as evidenced by their small number of edits overall (2 or 3 was common, less than 10 was very common), their small number of edits outside of said draft (usually two or less) and failure to edit outside of their specific topic of interest.
My rationale for using U5 this way is as follows: drafts about grossly unnotable (sometimes insignificant) topics and drafts that serve primarily or exclusively to promote an unnotable subject are not related to Project, and the failure of the creator to edit outside of areas related to that subject indicates that they are not here to contribute to the project, but instead to promote the entity in question. My first question for all of you is whether you support such a use of CSD U5, and if you don't, what you propose instead.
(2) While consensus is that drafts should not be deleted merely because their subjects are not notable, there is disagreement about whether notability has any place in deletion discussions where drafts are being nominated for deletion for other reasons. Those who oppose ever using notability explain that drafts exist to allow users to develop drafts in peace, meaning they will sometimes fail to demonstrate notability, and editors should not need to worry about mainspace standards being applied to content that's not ready yet ready for the mainspace. Others argue that notability is independent of the quality of the page, and that articles which fail notability (and so have no hope of surviving in mainspace in any condition) AND are causing disruption or harm in some other way are a net negative for the project and should be deleted. I believe this point would benefit from more discussion.
(3) Consensus so far is that the current situation, where the queues contain massive quantities of unworkable drafts and a few good ones, is not currently working. Pages in the draftspace as a result tend to be deleted with under G13 without careful attention to their potential, while maintenance queues for userspace drafts, which have no deletion mechanism, simply grow indefinitely. I suggested a tracking category that could be manually added by other editors to drafts showing promise, a proposal that received no attention. There also haven't been any other suggestions. Since we all can agree we don't particularly like the status quo, I should like to see a bit more discussion on possible ways to fix it.

Please discuss these issues below, creating separate section headers for each point if someone (i.e. the first person to reply) decides that makes the most sense. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compassionate727, you are wrong on (2), no one has ever said notability is not relevant. Notability just must not be the main driving reason for the nomination, and the purpose of the nomination must not require the reviewers to investigate and evaluate the notability of the topic. “Promotion and not notable” is a very good deletion rationale. “Plausibly notable” is a good keep reason, although not trumping many deletion rationales. This is a subtle, but not very subtle, distinction. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had not sensed that some people (including you) interpreted it that way, thanks for clarifying. I think this is the argument most of us are making, then (anyone else, please comment if you disagree with this position). Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
U5, of which I was a major proponent and author, is knowingly fairly subjective on interpreting NOTWEBHOST, which I would explain as meaning material of no relevance or benefit for the improvement of the project, but it has one very strong objective criteria, which is that the user has never made and significant positive contributions to the project. Remember userspace leeway is in some proportion to the user’s contributions, a non-contributor has no leeway. Userspace is not for non-contributors. Allow some room for an “intending contributor”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks. For the record, I found all of the aforesaid drafts in the monthly clean-up categories; they were all abandoned drafts from November 2009. Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This also explains why so consistently oppose deletions of drafts that don't qualify for speedy deletion: in your view, most draft that are of no use should qualify for CSD U5. Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE (3). That is a WP:AfC or a WP:Drafts issue, not a WP:MfD issue. That paragraph belongs at WT:AfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really a summary, and let's not start a very complicated, multi-question RfC, then add in your own summary of what other people think, then ask people to start more section headers to talk about the things you've included in your own summary... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duly noted. I've renamed the section if it makes you feel any better. Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • User:Compassionate727 you are using U5 and G11 exactly as I use them on stale userspace pages and I also get pretty close to 100% accepts on my CSDs. Carry on the good work. Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pedantic Comment

This is unusual because it is a Request for Comments that is being used as a Request for Comments. Normally a Request for Comments is really used as a Request for Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

👍 Like --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I'm aware. I can remove the RfC template if it would make everyone feel better, but I felt this was the best way to gain wider community participation, insofar as that's possible. Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or a "Request for Votes In My Favor". Compassionate727, thanks for adding an RFC tag to this. The main point of the RFC system is to get wider participation. You're doing it right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What Is This Called?

As long as we are talking about MFD, I would like to raise the issue of what this process should be called. It is currently called Miscellany for Deletion, and I think that is the correct name, but I will enumerate the other proposed names and ask editors who favor them to explain why it should be renamed.

I believe Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion is fine as is.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miscellany for Deletion

I think that this forum and process is only needed when drafts, user pages, or really miscellaneous things are proposed for deletion. I think that this process works fine for drafts (at least, we don't need a new process, only new clarifications). I think that we don't need to use this forum to discuss anything short of deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other H. sapiens may disagree.

  • Agree. MfD has huge scope. It is frequently appealing to troublesome busybodies who play games to engage other editors that they don't like, a forum for bullying, criticizing their work and essays and making their life difficult. We haven't seen much of that in recent years, but it needs to be resisted. Restricting MfD to decisions to delete for valid reasons to delete (WP:UPNOT and WP:NOT) is important to constrain scope creep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The name isn't hugely important, but it does set the tenor and locale. Most items here are proposed for deletion, but perhaps more importantly, something other than deletion for most items should be discussed elsewhere. As opposed to redirects, categories, or templates, which by their nature could use a centralized discussion place with extra eyeballs, this catch-all need not. ~ Amory (utc) 14:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miscellany for Discussion

This name has been suggested. I don't see the need to expand the scope of this forum to actions on miscellany or drafts less drastic than deletion. Templates and Redirects are discussed because messing with them can cause collateral damage. Messing with drafts doesn't cause collateral damage, so that discussions about rewriting or promoting the draft can be on its talk page. Even if it does get promoted, and shouldn't have been promoted, I will note that it goes to Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Discussion.

  • Strong oppose this old and repeated request. It represents massive scope creep that would make the forum unworkable. Random questions on random matters should go through WP:3O and WP:RfC, for example. Both AfD and MfD involve permanent deletion of content. The "discussion" fora, RfD, TfD, FfD, CfD, don't, as a rule, involve actual deletion of any creative content. FfD very rarely deletes freely licenced original content, it goes to Wikimedia Commons. Only AfD and MfD, the pure "deletion" fora, have the potential for great damage if used carelessly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I don't know about "great damage" for MfD, but yes, I agree that this shouldn't be the place to try and discuss the outcome of all these items. If you want to do something other than delete, this page is probably not the best place to do it. ~ Amory (utc) 14:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The great damage would come from MfD being swamped by questions of no importance to anyone but the nominator, depressing participation at MfD, and serious deletion nominations not getting any eyes. There have been previous periods when we came to this situation, when there were far more nominations and no independent reviewers. This is death by scope creep. An example of what could happen is WP:N/N, a noticeboard for discussion notability of specific cases. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drafts for Deletion

I don't see the need to have a different process for drafts than for other weird things like WP pages. Maybe someone else does. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • If there is a valid reason for deletion, MfD suffices. Competent nominators should be able to articulate a valid reason for deletion. WP:NOT contains a huge list of ideas, note that WP:N is not among them. The onus is on nominators to provide a coherent deletion rationale, and if they don't, WP:Speedy keep #1 applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If a few editors keep insisting that we can't discuss notability at MfD we are going to need Drafts for Deletion. There is a big gap between "we don't immediately delete because notability is not proven" and "we can't consider notability at all" Legacypac (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:Legacypac, and anyone else - I do not follow. I see no real difference between changing the rules at MFD for drafts and creating a new DFD process with changed rules, except that the need for an extra process has not been addressed. I do not follow. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's worth noting that the standard reads "drafts don't have notability", which means that simply renaming the venue won't change anything (that would also be gaming). However, I do intend to open an RfC proposing to amend that policy after this was one runs its course, since consensus seems to be that notability does matter, it's just not a primary reason for deletion. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support a split. The deletion concerns for drafts (incl. userpage) are different than for other types of pages. I came to this page looking for userboxes and project-space pages, but all I found was drafts. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drafts for Discussion

I don't see the need to have a process for formal discussion of any action on drafts other than: sending them to the bit bucket; sending them to dev/null; feeding them to the goat; feeding them to the monster under the bed (don't do that - it is a troll); setting them on fire. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe - You say that some drafts raise issues worth discussion. What sort of issues? Do you mean issues about the draft, or issues about the draft process?
This is a serious question, because I have seen the comment that we need to be able to discuss other actions about drafts than deleting them, and I don't know why specific issues about drafts, other than deletion, cannot be discussed on their own talk pages. Promotion of a draft can either be discussed on its talk page or by boldly moving it to article space and seeing whether anyone tags it for A7 or AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Examples:
(a) "AfC is attracting a lot more blatantly unsuitable submissions than the AfC architects envisioned". Raise at WT:AfC, not MfD. Don't nominate tens of thousands of abandoned drafts individually, as two editors began doing a few years ago.
(b) "This draft is sort of notable but I'm not sure". Raise on the draft talk page, not at MfD. Ping the author. Ping others as required.
(c) "This draft was unilaterally draftified and is about to be G13-ed, I think this is a deletion process failure". Raise at WT:Drafts or Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, not at MfD.
(d) "This draft seems a to be authored by someone with a conflict of interest". Raise at the author's talk page, or the draft talk page, or WP:COIN, not at MfD.
Beware of "boldly moving it to article space and seeing whether anyone tags it for A7 or AFD", this has been held to be disruptive to mainspace and has result in blocking of the editor who did it. Do not move to mainspace anything that you would not personally advocate for.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Discussion on drafts should take place either at the Talk page of the draft, the talk page of the redirect, or the Wikiproject that has the greatest stake in the draft. The Wikiproject would be best since it gets the most eyes on whether stuff should happen. MFD can then be used for discussions on whether Drafts should be deleted that aren't CSD'ed from being idle for months. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy redirect

Approximately 15 deletion discussions have been closed at this venue as speedy redirect since the beginning of 2017; it does not seem that this occurred before that time. I think the time has come to formally endorse or renounce the practice. From the approximate compilation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Speedy redirect#Precedent: Premeditated Chaos has 10 such closures, Primefac has 5 such closures, and TheSandDoctor has 1 such closure. Pinging some regulars, i.e. Robert McClenon, SmokeyJoe, and Compassionate727 for input as well.

Should Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Speedy redirect, a proposal I created, be adopted as a standard practice (allowing anyone to defensibly make such a close)? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No, Speedy Redirect, like speedy delete, and speedy keep, should be read as advice to novices or a TROUT to non-novices that the page should not have been brought to MfD. It should not be considered normal and acceptable, or at least not good practice. There have always been obsessive meddling busy bodies bringing inocuous harmless things to MfD, but it’s the DraftSpace crisis with redundant drafts that has led silly people to bring these redundant drafts to MfD. Speedy keeps should not be nominated. Speedy deletes should have been CSD tagged. Speedy Redirect means the nominator needs to read WP:ATD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: This is not meant to normalize the practice, but rather to document it, just like Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I concur that speedy redirects, like speedy keeps, (and anything else speedily closed) should not have been nominated. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Documenting it is to normalise it. What would be better would be to make a prominent BEFORE section to remind would be nominators to BEFORE nomination, consider applicabel CSD criteria, consider WP:ATD policy, especially redirection of a redundant draft to the relevant article (or article section).
Where a page could be redirected, but the nominator thinks it needs deletion and not redirection, the nominator should be obliged to make a statement to that effect. Otherwise, it looks like a kneejerk reflex flick it off to MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: If the practice is not documented, how will anyone besides the mfd regulars pinged to this discussion know when a speedy redirect closure is appropriate and when one is not? Furthermore, process is important; if the community does not sanction speedy redirect as an acceptable outcome, the door is left wide open for arguable deletion reviews where mere essays have little force. This is necessary for both newbies and experienced mfd participants in posterity. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can document in an essay. Use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Speedy redirect as I suggest at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Speedy redirect. It is the nominators who need information, not the closers. You are on your way to writing instructions to the experts on how to suck eggs. There is no need to document how to close a speedy redirect on the MfD page. It would be bloat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On seeing a reasonable No statement, I will think about this and reply within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Just a quick ping in case you forgot about this discussion and still desire to weigh in. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support this as a standard practice, obviously, since I do them so damn often (I'm sure there have actually been more than 10). I don't particularly care about trouting nominators, but I suppose having one's nomination summarily shut down as a speedy does serve as a bit of a public shaming. If it's really that important, maybe we can ping nominators when we do these, or post on their talk page to say what happened and why, and for them not to do it again? ♠PMC(talk) 04:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do very well closing, in my opinion, PMC, but an important point here is that Godsy will not be writing instructions for you, but for MfD newbies. A standard outcome of "speedy redirect" will likely reinforce the misconception that MfD is required to redirect a redundant page to the relevant article. WP:BEANS is related. Also the old principle that documentation should document best practice, not normal practice. Documenting, and criticising, normal practice can be done in essays. Instructions on process pages should be kept short and sweet, WP:TL;DR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The instructions would be approved by the community and apply to everyone, which is a good thing. If "[the oucome of an MfD] is [not generally] required to [be the] redirect[ion of] a redundant [draft] to the relevant article [when it exists]," then speedy redirects are essentially a supervote of sorts and should not be done. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MfD is not required to redirect a redundant draft to the relevant article. MfD is not even the right venue. If a redirect discussion is required, use the talk page. Redirection is ordinary editing. WP:CNR is about redirects taking readers out of mainspace, not redirects taking editors to mainspace. Pages that can be redirected should not be brought to MfD, unless there is a statement by the nominator that redirection should not be done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: No one is claiming that. I've attempted to clarify above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SmokeyJoe, I agree with you that these drafts shouldn't be MfD'd at all, and that best practice would be for whoever comes across them to just redirect them to the mainspace version. But for the situations where the nomination has already been made, given that we can't go back and un-make it, it makes sense to codify that anyone can speedily redirect them to the mainspace version and close the discussion. ♠PMC(talk) 07:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually also why can't the documentation cover all that anyway? Start the essay off with something like "when encountering a draft which duplicates an existing mainspace article or other draft, editors are encouraged to be BOLD and redirect the redundant draft to the main version. It is not necessary to nominate such redirections for MfD unless you have reason to believe that the redirection will be significantly controversial, or that the content should be deleted prior to being redirected." And then roll into the rest of what Godsy wrote about the actual process of SK-redirects. ♠PMC(talk) 07:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I think that any closure which begins with the prefix "speedy" says that the page should not have been brought to deletion discussion in the first place; that what's speedy (as opposed to "thoroughly discussed") is. Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not necessarily opposed to making it "official" that a speedy redirect is well within our rights as closers and is something to keep in mind before nominating a page. If SRs are on the rise, clearly someone is missing something. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Speedy redirect is indeed a trout; that's why it's speedy. If a page should not stand alone and does not warrant deletion, you are supposed to boldly redirect it. Such a redirect can be easily reversed if it is objected to, which is why doing so does not require an MfD, unlike deletion. If a page that should have been boldly redirected is brought to MfD, it should still be boldly redirected. That's what a speedy redirect closure is doing. Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don’t necessarily oppose. I don’t disagree with statements by PMC and Primefac, in particular. It may be worth looking at the outcome of what Godsy proposes. It may be quite ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk), —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Its implementation and use, as I have seen, is agreeable to me. Apologies for Godsy, I misguessed what was being proposed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I don't think of it as a reprimand or trout, just as the recognition that some other process than MfD is appropriate. Even experienced people listing articles for deletion make occasional errors,, and the various disputes over the proper use of draft space make it even more likely that this will happen. I think that, just like the nom at AfD sometimes does a speedy keep on realizing there is no support, the nominator here as well as others seeing the listing might do this themselves in appropriate cases. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drafts for Discussion (again) idea, maybe

Not far up on this talk page, we discussed very briefly whether to rename this forum, and no one presented a plausible reason either to split out the drafts from the everything else or to change the name from Deletion to Discussion. Here is a thought that might not be worth pursuing further, but I am throwing it out anyway.

First, a frustrated draft author, MUMACHA2203, posted this diatribe to a reviewer’s talk page: For background, this draft author is a single-purpose account who is seeking approval of one particular draft, Draft:Kopparapu Duo Poets, and appears to be honestly single-minded (rather than conflicted or paid). Mumacha2203 has been pestering multiple reviewers to approve their draft, and getting multiple declines. They don’t seem to be willing to take advice, and they think that their English is better than it is. I wouldn’t have much sympathy with point 7 except that it does seem to capture some of the criticisms by more experienced editors of the Drafts and AFC process:

7. Please develop a mechanism to resolve the issues of draft rather than complicate it. Presently editors/admins are quite whimsical in their posts declining a draft much well written and supported by independent verifiable sources and references on one silly pretext or the other.

Maybe we do need a mechanism that reviewers (not submitters) can use to get the comments of multiple reviewers at one time. I am wondering whether either Drafts for Discussion can be split off from MFD, or MFD renamed to Miscellany for Discussion in order to deal with other options for drafts (while keeping the project pages, portals, and whatnot), and that the options available to !voters and for disposition of drafts should include not only Keep and Delete, but also Promote (or Accept), and Strip Promising Draft (thus allowing the thing to age normally). If we implement this, we don’t want submitters to be able to submit drafts for review, because many submitters are clueless and would overburden the process, but maybe reviewers should be able to ask for a collective assessment on whether to promote drafts, as well as whether to delete them.

At this time I am asking for comments on the idea of a Drafts for Discussion process (often mentioned, but usually mentioned idly).

Any comments on Kopparapu Duo Poets are also welcome, but that isn’t the purpose of this post. I personally think that its submitter is engaged in filibuster. If its submitter wants to move it to article space, they can, but I won’t move it to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For AfC Drafts it would be better to post the AfC talk requesting other reviewers weigh in on the Draft with comments. That centralizes discussion and helps the submitter. If several reviewers agree we shoukld delete it than run it through MfD noting the concensus.
So called "Promising Drafts" will not be insulated from G13, just postponed, and if not promotable or redirected, can be discussed at MfD which seems to be working well. Legacypac (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, User:Legacypac. So it appears that you are suggesting that a reviewer may request centralized discussion of a draft at the draft's talk page, and I agree that is where a centralized record will be kept. My question then is where you are suggesting that the reviewer make the request for discussion at the talk page. The draft talk page itself is not a good place to request discussion, because it is not always watchlisted, and not every editor always responds to watchlist updates anyway unless they are pinged. Is the Teahouse a reasonable place for the request? The AFC Help Desk? I don't usually watch it, because I am annoyed by the incompetence of many of the questions. Where? I don't want to use MFD as a means for discussion unless it is a discussion of deletion, or unless its charter is changed so that it also becomes a forum to discuss promotion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation and/or by requesting help from a WikiProject like Math - but encourage discussion on the Draft talkpage The AfC Help Desk is for incompetent or needless requests for review and teahouse would tend to bring in random editors that don't necessarily know AfC procedure or notability guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A drafts for discussion page does seem needed. At the moment, the best place would be WT:AfC. How about just do it, and when there are too many threads, spin out to another page. A subpage of WT:AfC, or of WP:AfC, or a subpage of WP or WT Drafts, any could work. Maybe WP:Drafts/Drafts for promotion, a page for reviewers to start threads on drafts that they are unsure whether to promote, or what to do. “Promotion” instead of “discussion” is a positive and slightly scope-directing term. MfD has had too much focus on particularly bad drafts, when energy is better spent at the other end of the quality spectrum. Maybe do the discussion by trancluding from the draft talk page? A consensus at WP:Drafts/Drafts for promotion to delete a particular draft would be sufficient consensus to delete the draft, even if the focus of the page is to consider promoting the draft. Many drafts initially look plausible enough but on examination can be found unworthy, unworthy for inclusion, ever. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I disagree in particular with User:SmokeyJoe that "MfD has had too much focus on particularly bad drafts, when energy is better spent at the other side of the quality spectrum". MFD as it currently is should be focusing on bad drafts, because its purpose is to delete them. Is SmokeyJoe proposing a separate forum to discuss drafts for promotion? If so, so. I was wondering whether to discuss both bad drafts and good drafts at MFD or DFD. I don't think that we should mostly focus on promotion, because any reviewer can promote a draft. The purpose of a forum to discuss promotion would, in my opinion, be to allow a reviewer to ask for other opinions when their initial idea was to decline, or when they are truly in doubt. But remember: We don't need to discuss the best drafts, because any reviewer can promote them. It is intermediate drafts that may need discussing. We do also need to discuss the worst drafts, because they need deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think what you disagree with I could have said a lot better.
Both the good and bad drafts need no discussion. Good ones can be promoted by anyone, bad ones can be CSDed. Disagree that non-CSD-eligible drafts need deletion, and discussing deleting them is a waste of time and effort. Just reject them (a still yet to be created AfC template). However, see Template_talk:NSFW#NSFW_templated_drafts_should_be_deleted_if_there_is_no_objection for an alternative idea for non-CSD-eligible drafts that are plainly unsuitable topics. DraftProd, or leave them for G13, the worst drafts do not need discussion. The worthy discussions are where a reviewer is unsure whether a draft should be promoted. A forum for that I think is a very good idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. The GCSD (especially G13) are more than enough. I believe draft PROD has been proposed at the very least once and firmly rejected. MfD or bust; more community input, not less, is preferential. That aside, a separate discussion venue or process is unnecessary; MfD is adequate. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I can re-try at what Robert disagreed with: I believe that we should put more effort into borderline OK drafts, and less effort into definitely not ok drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure of RFC announcement

The RFC at the Village Pump regarding a modification of the language of WP:NMFD has been closed. The result of the discussion was that drafts may be deleted for notability at MfD if it also meets one of the deletion reasons and consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace (emphasis added). Please see the discussion for the full close. Primefac (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is my opinion that COIN is doing a better job of dealing with COI drafts than in the recent past. Some of the drafts have been nuked, and some of the editors and their socks have been nuked. I sometimes see the comment at MFD that in a particular case what is really needed is not deletion but sanctions on the editor. WP:COIN is the place to request sanctions on flacks (and sometimes their socks get washed in the process). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fools are a different matter. We just need to decline or reject or delete their drafts, unless they are so manifestly clueless as to warrant a competency block. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]