Has there been discussion on whether G13 should apply to drafts which were previously moved from mainspace? Many valid stubs are unilaterally draftified without anyone noticing, and G13 tagging would result in them being deleted without going through the due process of AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a valid problem, that has been mentioned before by other editors (including myself). Unfortunately, consensus back then was that we should just trust editors and admins not to tag/delete such articles. I'd be happy if G13 was amended to exclude such drafts. Regards SoWhy 08:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)\[reply]

As a note, all G13 pages can be immediately refunded, for any reason. Thus, if for some reason an "incubated" article-turned-draft is deleted improperly, all that's required is to ask for it back. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a radical rethink of G13. How about moving all G13 eligible drafts into mainspace and then triaging them again just like any new mainspace page? Anything speedily deletable under an A criterion could be speedily deleted, other things could be WP:PRODded, and any page that doesn't meet AFC reviewer's criteria but doesn't clearly need to be deleted could either be left alone or at least qualify for AFD instead of MFD. —Kusma (t·c) 12:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a genuine question (not trying to be an ass) but do you know how many pages are G13-deleted every day? If instead of deleting garbage pages in the draft spaces, we move them to the article space and then delete them, we might as well just get rid of the draft space altogether. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how much you remember pre-2013 Wikipedia, but interesting enough, Wikipedia worked well enough without Draft-space for ten years, so basically we'd just go back to how things were before. As for the question, give me a minute and I'll see if I can whip up a database query to answer it. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a d-base, it was asking if they knew the numbers. Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions currently has 906 pages in it. Hasteur could confirm, but I seem to recall that the bot only puts up something like 30 per day to avoid flooding. Either way, if we dumped all 900 pages into Article space, TonyBallioni would have my hide. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the Category:G13 elegible AfC submissions is always less than 1/2 the actual G13 ready count. There is usually a 2000 plus page backlog in User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report and the report does not list Userspace pages tagged AfC and stale. This category [1] has 4100 pages but does not break out by age of the draft. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To put some further numbers through - about 250 drafts are submitted for review each day. Of those about 50 are accepted, (the following are very rough numbers) so even assuming a 75% resubmission rate (after initial decline) we're talking about at least 50 pages per day being G13-eligible (and I suspect the resub rate is a lot lower, probably around 50% for 100 new G13-able pages per day). Primefac (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, according to this, there were 1649 G13 deletions in 2018 so far (or approx. 87 each day). I think NPP could handle an additional 87 pages a day. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I was actually pretty close. Neat. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you though, those 87 are all deletions, not just pages that were previously moved to draft-space without discussion. That number is still likely quite high but not as high as that one (when I last ran that query in August, it gave us 20,700 moves to draftspace in approx. 4 years or ~14 moves per day. Those are the pages the OP doesn't want to see G13'd and I think we could agree that those 14 pages are day can really be handled by MFD or by moving them back to article space. Also, as a concession of sorts, I could imagine that we can agree that in return the A-criteria can be allowed to be applied if the page could have been deleted under them while in mainspace. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia worked well enough without Draft-space for ten years No it didn't, it was dysfunctional and utterly shit. Nick (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Do you think it is less dysfunctional now, and if yes, how is that connected to the existence of draft space? —Kusma (t·c) 15:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think in all the discussions that have been had about draftifying I can recall, G13 was seen as a positive less bitey alternative to PROD or AfD (where if we are honest, most of these drafts would end up), and it was explictly discussed as a feature of draftifying by many supporting the practice (and on the flip side, was one of the main objections of those opposing). Based on the current monthly averages, an extra 87 pages would still have us under the pre-ACTRIAL levels. We've currently been reducing the backlog at about 1900 a week for the last two weeks, but as a project we are in a backlog drive, so I'm not sure how long that will last. I'd oppose simply dumping the G13s from mainspace back into mainspace as a matter of course (we can assume that at least some new page reviewers have sense about them and that they were draftified for a reason). At the same time, I don't think that anything should be G13'd as a matter of course: as with all deletions, admins need to actually read the content and look at the history. If it was a draft with potential that someone (incorrectly) sent to draft space only because of formatting, the G13 at the very least should be declined. I also think that admins shouldn't be G13ing things they have sent to draft space on their own, as it would amount to a unilateral deletion.
  tl;dr: I don't think there is consensus to exempt draftified articles from G13, but I also think that admins need to look at the content before deleting. I also think that wholesale moving back to mainspace after 6 months is a bad idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I just re-read the suggestion: from an entirely unrelated to the NPP backlog perspective, I strongly oppose mainspacing all G13 eligible drafts. The amount of undetected copyvio passing the NOINDEX threshold alone is enough to make that idea bad. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeaaaah, but that's not how it works, is it? If I'm reading the query I posted above right, Fastily alone has deleted 30 such drafts within 2 minutes, which would mean they had ~4 seconds per page to "actually read the content and look at the history". I'm happy to assume good faith that they read all them before and then just deleted them in one go but somehow I doubt that. Regards SoWhy 14:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the thing is, they're not required to "actually read the content and look at the history", because we talked about it at length and decided that "a draft that's six months stale" is a universal and uncontroversial criterion for immediate deletion. And as you all keep pointing out, it's no big deal because G13'd drafts can be automatically REFUNDed. So what's the problem? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the policy does say ".A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible." (emphasis added) and only by checking the history can an admin ensure that this was actually a draft for six months, no? Also, when we discussed this last, I distinctly remember people arguing that we should not worry about semi-automated bot-like G13 deletions because admins will still check whether alternatives to deletion (which still is a policy last I checked) exist. Not sure how you can check for alternatives without considering the whole history. Regards SoWhy 14:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  To address (once again) the high-speed-deletion fallacy - there's nothing inherently "wrong" with deleting multiple pages in a short span of time. Now, in this particular instance I cannot comment, but it is possible (and I've done it myself) that all of the pages were checked first, and then deleted in rapid succession. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: (your 13:10, 19 January 2018 comment): The bot runs every two hours and nominates pages that it has warned on at least one month prior that are still eligible for G13 until Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions is at 50 members. Wanting to be crystal clear for you. Hasteur (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm not this bullshit again. G13 is explicitly simple and makes ZERO judgements about the content of the page. It's the single most objective criterion out there: Is the page in Draft namespace or has the {{AFC submission}} template? Has the page been unedited (excluding bot edits and maintenance actions such as tagging) in over six months? If the answer to both is yes, then you can go ahead and nominate for G13 as the page meets the requirements. There is no obligation to consiter alternatives to deletion. It might be nice, but there is no obligation. I (and my bot) take the more conservative view in that six months unedited means six months unedited as even a single maintenance or bot edit could trigger renewed interest in the page. Admins have been willing to rubber stamp my bot's nominations as it goes for the very narrow criterion instead of trying one of the many other discretionary measures which require the admin to fully engage and consider the content. Just as G13 is usually rubber stampped, the way to get the content back WP:REFUND is usually rubber stamped barring the G13 deletion followed by refund request cycle being abused multiple times or the admin exercising discretion in chosing not to restore bad content. In short, G13 is a well established and endorsed community standard and doesn't need any more hoops to have to run through. If individual editors want to run over pages to pull out discretionary CSD reasons, take a look at Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions as those are AfC pages that are between 5 and 6 months unedited that could be nominated for G13 soon. Hasteur (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Hasteur. G13 was implemented to deal with backlog so large it was unprocessable. As for draftified mainspace articles, see the restrictions at Wikipedia:Drafts#Draftification_of_pages_from_Article_Space. Basically, articles can only be speediable if: mainspace speediable; or recognized as inadequate during NPP by a New Page Reviewer. Authors have a right to refuse draftification, which means AfD instead. There is a fear that draftification can be used as a back door deletion process. There have been few examples of poor draftification moves, I think it is largely a theoretical fear. The documentation at Wikipedia:Drafts#Draftification_of_pages_from_Article_Space is intended to give recourse should someone find someone draftifying unreasonably. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting how editors with no evident history dealing with the mountain of crap in Draft space come trying to restrict how these Drafts get cleaned up by attempting to layer on extra criteria to G13. For example, Several editors wanted a promising draft template and made a lot of noise about it. Template exists and would respected if those editors ever used it. In the end it was obstructionist backseat driving from users with no real interest in doing the work of sorting abandoned drafts for gems (or maybe the imagined gems could not be found?).

From the abandoned Drafts moved from mainspace I've seen that hit G13 nomination, they are no better or special than other abandoned drafts. The fact some inexperienced editor started the page in mainspace instead of draft does not give the page any halo. Therefore this is a very unnecessary restriction. Legacypac (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, if you are replying to Hasteur or me, you are very unclear. We are defending the simply applicability of G13. Do you have an issue with the template {{tl:Promising Draft}}? Do you have a problem with restrictions on unilateral draftification of old mainspace pages, as opposed to their G13 deletions if left abandoned? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on the original proposal to add a carve out on G13 for pages that started in mainspace. I strongly oppose that as unhelpful and unnecessary. I have no issue with "promosing draft" but note the people that made a lot of noise about that proposed restriction on G13 have not implemented it except in a few example pages. While opinions are of course free to give, some actual experience dealing with a meaningful number of drafts leads to more informed opinions. Legacypac (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hasteur, there are always alternatives to deletion. For G13 there are quite a few: some common ones are that the admin can decide to:

1. accept the article.

2. fix the article and accept it.

3. accept it as a redirect

4 accept it for merging some or all of the contents

5 say it needs further time to see if it is fixable, and postpone it

6 fix it partially, thus defeating the G13 by having made an edit.

7. delete it under another criterion that is applicable. (which has the effect of preventing automatic restoration on request)

8. delete it under both G13 and another criterion (which also has the effect of preventing automatic restoration on request)

I have personally done every one of these options when I think it warranted,some of them many dozens of times. In each case, the decision about what might be done is a matter of judgment and will vary between different admins, just as with other speedy criteria.

I'm not objecting to G13. We need this criterion, because about 90% of the G13s should simply be deleted, and that's what I do with them. (my actual % is lower, because I try to work on only the possibly disputable cases, not monopolizing the process)

What we need most is a way to index materialthat has been deleted by G13, so people can see if there is a potentially useful draft. without that it is not just a choice, but a unambiguously bad choice directly contrary to fundamental principles to delete without consideration, because the goal is to make an encyclopedia , not to expeditiously remove material for technical reasons that could be used to improve the encyclopedia.

We do not permit deletion by bots. We therefore should not permit deletion by admins acting as bots. Since this is apparently not completely understood, we may have to adjust the wording of G13. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All true, which is why I check every page I nominate to see if it is worth saving. Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Your entire thesis is predicated on someone doing work on the page before it gets to G13. If you were doing items 1-4 before it even got to G13, this wouldn't have been a problem. 5 and 6 are kicking the issue down the road 6 months in which we get to ask the question "Was there any real improvement in the last 6 months when someone decided to dodge the question?". and finally Items 7 and 8 are really the same thing, only that you're suggesting that people look for other CSD (which should have been addressed before it got to 6 months). In short: G13 is an easy tool to reach for because it requires little effort that by the nature of being eligible makes the criterion incontravertable. Hasteur (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the only people notified are the ones who have worked on it before. The listing at CSD exposes it a several hundred people who att least occasionally patrol there. When I say I have rescued dozens in each category, I indeed meant dozens that had already been tagged G13. And this is only among the ones I look at--there are manThere have probably been at least 50 thousand G13s--I have checked perhaps 1/10 of them, and rescued 1/10 of those. There are many subject areas where I do not look, those where I am not competent to either fix or know what is worth fixing. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Legacypac, is there an easy to find log of your rescued G13-eligible pages? User:DGG/CSD log and User:Legacypac/CSD log are both impressive records of your work getting things deleted, what about things saved? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that "G13 is fine just the way it is". No, it's not fine, it is an unhappy necessity, and it only continues because we cannot think of any viable alternative. Well, I can think of a possible alternative, it is extending WP:ACTRIAL to draftspace. Stop all non-autoconfirmed accounts from creating *any* page. The one in a million cases where a newcomer has a valid new topic that should be created immediately, can't wait a few days, they can use {{help me}} or any number of other ways of asking for help. But let's wait for the ACTRIAL in mainspace results.
Agree with Hasteur that DGG is presuming the implausible. There are far too many to-be abandoned drafts for the limited community of editors to realistically review, especially considering the extremely low average value of the abandoned drafts compared to other project work that is waiting. The best we can do is encourage editors to glance at them while G13-tagging them. A necessary part of the encouragement is the empowerment that comes from trusting their effort and decision. In this task, Legacypac is doing an extremely valuable task and deserves considerable thanks. Legacypac glancing at each draft before tagging G13 is far better that Hasteur's bot's taggings, but if Legacypac weren't doing it, then it would have to fall to the bot, or some other bot, because we all agreed that the old drafts can't be left to pile up endlessly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SmokeyJoe I use the AFCH Comment tool to "save" some seeming valid topics. There must be way to track that. I also submit pages to AfC so some show up as "accepted" on my talkpage. My move log used to show pages I found and promoted but Some ____ users managed to ban me from moves to mainspace - which is utterly stupid because any user with 10 edits in 4 days can start any garbage in mainspace, yet a skilled user like me working in draft space is restricted.

I'd wholeheartedly support expanding ACTRIAL to all spaces, or at least draft space. It is rare indeed random brand new users find topics that demand a new page right now. Heck in my coin forum you need your acount confirmed by email, approved by an Admin and 10 posts before you can do very much includimg starting a new thread. We cut out nearly all our spam that way. It's pretty absurd that the threshhold to start a page is SO LOW on such a big site. It shows Wikipedia does not value existing volunteers very much because we have to clean up after the random new users. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that there are plenty of articles that are accepted at AfC that were created by non-AC users right? Even the occasional IP. You don't have to dig through Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent for very long to determine that fully restricting article creation to only the "worthy" people who have gotten their first flag is a horrible idea that will put off an huge amount of people. Sure there is crap but there will always be crap regardless of what you do. At what point does this end? Why don't we just require registration and a user right to create pages? That would solve all our (perceived) problems. --Majora (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is very real. It broke New Page Patrol and AfC can't keep up with the flood if crap. 4 days/10 edits is a userright called auto confirmed, is VERY easy to get, and it is working wonders in reducing the flood of pages we have to delete. Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not even going to address the entire first part huh? The part about non-autoconfirmed and even IPs creating numerous acceptable drafts that would be lost? No? Ok. As for the user right that was sarcasm (reductio ad absurdum if you will by proposing that only those editors with a specific user right can create articles, not just confirmed people). Should have included some sort of indicator. My mistake. And AfC is doing fine. Always has been. There was a time pre-ACTRIAL where it was sitting permanently at 3,000 articles waiting to be reviewed. It waxes and wanes like anything. --Majora (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Majora, new accounts and IPs can and do write acceptable pages in their first 4 days. These are the exceptions. I suggest that they are capable of understanding the restriction and using the {{help me}} tool if they don't want to wait. Why don't we just require registration and a user right to create pages? I support that. Register and autoconfirmed to create pages. Anyone can edit, but four days and ten edits to create pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly common for people in education programs to do the composition of the article offline, and only add it to WP when finished. (I'm not sure that's the best way, but it seems now to be the usual way.). There has to be some way of allowing for this. There also has to be some way of allowing for editathons, where people write simple but acceptable articles ( that isn;t the only way to run an editathon, but it's one of the ways used.) I further think it perfectly feasible for any reasonably competent editor to study the basic rules, and write a straightforward biographical article using as a model existing articles--and it was possible even before the visual editor for a WP beginner with any knowledge of html. Not all WP beginners are beginners at accurate writing. Not all are promotional. Many, probably most, are promotional or less than adequately skilled, of course, but it would discourage any competent beginner to not be able to write immediately. It's a balance; we have to allow for both sides.

To see what I've done with drafts other than delete, look at by contributions in draft space. The ones that remove a small number of characters (e.g, -37) are likely to have been removals of G13. I don't usually do that via AFCH. My acceptances can be seen most easily in my move log, and are done with AFCH except those in the past when it wasn't working fast enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I think that doesn't work, because your edits to draftspace pages now in mainspace now look like mainspace edits. Am I wrong? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the Draft space contributions, you can see where I removed the G13 tags for deletion but left the article in draft space; from the moves you can see those I accepted. You ar eright it may not show the edits where I removed the G13 tags, and someone else moved them to mainspace. (You can also see the edits to Draftspace talk--almost all of these will be moves to mainspace). But all these will leave out a lot, and if anyone wants to set up something that will get them all together, I would be grateful. Looking at these all, I am a little startled--I thought I was primarily trying to save, and I am primarily trying to save, but there is nonetheless much more that needs to be deleted than rescued. This is a well-known class of problem: anything that reduces the errors made by not deleting inappropriate articles will increase the errors made by deleting inappropriate ones. We cannot reach perfection in either direction without making many errors in the other. It's a matter of balance, which is why all deletion activities here must be carried out with judgment. Our judgment may be inadequate, but it offers the opportunity to improve on automatic operations. (to be fair, it also offers the opportunity to do worse than a well-constructed automatic rule). There's an addition I would suggest to the basic pillars: WP cannot not be expected to be perfect. DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The balance shown in the stats worked up was roughly 80% of new pages created by non-autoconfirmed users get deleted vs about 20% deleted for auto-conformed users. Anything is possible but a little bar to jump keeps out massive amount of junk. Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone organised enough to write up a full draft, with references, surely they can manage to get autoconfirmed, or ask for help? Four days to get autoconfirmed compares very well with months to get a draft reviewed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To address the original question, drafts that were originally in mainspace can and should be treated exactly the same as drafts that weren't, IMO. Moving to draft space is a common thing where an article is headed for deletion, and leaving them in draft space indefinitely is basically an end-run around deletion. G13 is a housekeeping thing, predicated, I think, on the view that we're not a web host. Moving to draft space is fine if peple are going to fix the article, but it's not indefinite leave to remain. Most G13 articles I have seen are adverts or resumes. That's the plain truth of it. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts that were not previously articles

I think the issue is not specific to drafts that were previously articles (given that they weren't submitted via AfC, are they even eligible for G13 anyway?). True, a lot of garbabe gets created via AfC and it's probably nice to have an easy fix like G13 that enables the easy disposal of that garbage, but with the way this process works, what gets thrown away isn't only the garbage.

The trouble is that it's in effect an automated process: the tagging is accomplished by a bot, and the deletion itself comes with no strings attached: even though an admin can review what they delete, there's no requirement to do so and the overwhelming majority of G13 deletions I've seen are performed by one admin who doesn't seem to look at what they delete (I arrive at that conclusion because of their speed – several dozen deletions per minute – and the fact that they don't otherwise have edits to the draft namespace which would have attested to them ever having taken an action different from deletion).

Now, there wouldn't be anything wrong with such automatic deletions if there existed some process of filtering out the good stuff. There is no such thing. Let's start with the review itself: most reviewers are doing their job well, but their decisions are made based on the state of the draft and not on the notability of the topic (they aren't required to do WP:BEFORE, a few do, most don't seem to). The result is that drafts on notabe topics get rejected because of suboptimal sourcing. Of course, draft creators can always resubmit, but my impression is that it's normally only the ones with strong personal motives (=COI) who do that – precisely the people we don't want around. Most creators don't resubmit: they either leave wikipedia for good, or simply accept the decline as the last word on the matter and then proceed to edit elsewhere: if the draft is then deleted, they won't request its undeletion.

Another issue is that the occasional WP:WHACAMOLE-minded editor can do disproportionate damage: declining a draft takes less effort than accepting and the small number of reviewers who go as fast as they can in their enthusiasm for reducing the backlog (or for ramping up their edit count) can amass an enormous amount of declines. If they did something comparable in mainspace, it would annoy enough people and the person would be dragged to ANI. But in the draft namespace no-one seems to be watching (see here for an example and further details).

After that, a month before a draft becomes G13 eligible, it's added to a category and so theoretically, people could trawl for anything worth keeping. I've seen some people do that, but I've also seen that all of the mainspace-worthy declined drafts I had on my watchlist were deleted – the coverage is sketchy and again, there's no systematic process.

In short: from the moment a draft is declined to the time it's deleted, there are several things that could in principle stop good content from being thrown away, but in practice none do. The deletion of a draft is virtually decided the moment it's declined. – Uanfala (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uafala: Did you even bother to read the above commentary because it seems like your entire post could do with some BEFORE yourself. G13 is applicable to any page in the Draft namespace and any page that has a {{AFC submission}}. The AFC pages get cleaned out fairly well via the Bot nominating task. The second source for editors to sort through pages that are G13 eligible is User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report which generates 1x a day. Before is not required in draft space (nor is it in articlespace). Your entire post seems to be predicated on a WP:ABF position that the nominators are willy nilly nominating things. I'm fairly certain that the nominators are doing their due diligence on the page prior to nomination including trying to avoid a G13 as it's annoying to see it come back. Hasteur (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of G13's extended applicability: I've only ever looked at drafts that were created via the AfC process. Still, this is beside the point. Apologies for making my post unclear: I wasn't suggesting that reviewers were failing in their required duty of doing BEFORE, my point was that the very absence of such a requirement (combined with everything else I'm trying to draw attention to) leads to a situation where acceptable texts on notable topics get deleted on a large scale. I'm not sure what nominations you're referring to. – Uanfala (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your whole post is based on assuming reviewers are incompetant and don't accept good topics, CSD nominators are just looking for edit count and Admins are too dumb to postpone deletion or recognize worthy content. There is a process that saves the gems from the garbage. It works. Join in reviewing drafts and promoting the good ones rather than backseat driving from a position of ignorance. There is NO situation with G13 where "acceptable texts on notable topics get deleted on a large scale" Legacypac (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry for not making myself clear enough, but I encourage you to read my post: I'm not asserting any of the things you allege I'm asserting. My whole point was that with the current system, the collective outcome of well-intentioned and acceptably competent AfC activity is that an unacceptably large amount of good content gets thrown down the drain. I welcome criticism of individual points of what I had written above (and will be happy to provide further details and examples), but I don't think the overall attitude of outright refusal to acknowledge the existence of a problem is serving the community well. – Uanfala (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with your unsubstantiated assertion that an "unacceptably large amount of good quality content gets thrown down the drain". Too many incorrect assumptions posted and I disagree with your conclusion. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, G13 is just far too broad. Too much quality-ish workable content is trashed. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We had strong support to expand G13 not too long ago, and I see no evidence good content is being trashed. I suggest reviewing the discussion on that. If abandoned marginal pages keep piling up it gets harder and harder to identify and eliminate the try problematic pages There is strong support for the idea Drafts are temporary pages and need to either be improved to mainspace or be removed after a period of inactivity. Legacypac (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the massive numbers of drafts and all the trash in the draft namespace. However, those would be better eliminated with DraftPRODs, draft-specific CSD, and Drafts for Discussion/Deletion. The fact is, G13 as a deletion criterion is extremely arbitrary. 6 months is not by any means a sign of quality or lack of it. I am aware of the G13 refunds, but the fact that the drafts are invisible to normal users in the meantime, and the fact that the original author is most likely gone, means that much useful or salvageable ideas and content are deleted. It is for this reason that I propose we eliminate G13 as it is used now. Opinions? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A. Work the cream An alternative approach, of identifying the drafts that should not be deleted, is more oriented towards productivity. Template:Promising draft exists for doing this. I think this templating of the better stuff could be improved by categorising, and sub-categorising by a quality and topic. This would provide a reservoir of drafts more tempting for editors to look at. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also not a bad idea. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• B. CSD#D* DraftPROD is no good because the pages are not watched. If you collect the worst of the draft pages, why would anyone want to read them? It would be a de facto CSD, and as such, it would, de facto, need to satisfy the CSD new criterium criteria. Let's just talk about CSD#D* criteria. I suggest D* criteria can be drafted from the following A* criteria:

2.2.1 A1. No context

2.2.3 A3. No content

2.2.5 A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)

2.2.6 A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings)

2.2.7 A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic

2.2.8 A11. Obviously invented

All should be required to be applicable to old pages, say > 4 weeks. A7 and A9 would want to be much tighter for drafts, and I suspect the community won't accept it. A10 in draftspace, just redirect to the mainspace article. A11 definitely. Also, be more liberal in using G2 (tests)(if old) and G11 (unusable promotion)(tag immediately). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's a pretty good idea. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old idea, and I don't hope much hope for it, except maybe "Obviously invented", which be better fitted into G3. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• C. Empower the reviewers I also suggest a new CSD#D criteria: "Agreed to be hopeless by any two Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers". Both reviewers must have the permission, and carry the responsibility for what they tag. NPReviewers who misuse this function make lose the permission. I believe that all AfC reviewers should be NPR qualified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, some drafts look pretty bad in their early stages, to be fair. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. I've seen a draft start out as a hopeless mess of promotional fluff and evolve into a nice neutral article that got accepted into main space. And the editor who started out as a company PR rep ends up working productively in non-COI areas. It happens. Rarely, but it happens. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • You pointed at the new criterion criteria just above, in the very same edit. How is this at all objective or uncontestable? —Cryptic 08:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, some drafts start off pretty poor, but as long as someone works on them they rarely are deleted. G13 covers Abandoned drafts.

I've tagged many blank Drafts as G2 Test Page and never had an Admin reject the tag.

Tagging drafts as no indication of significance will be controversial.

There is already G3? For Hoaxes. I'd like to see that expanded to cover "obviously invented".

Currently we tend to redirect topics that duplicate mainspace topics. Some people like to use a Draft copy to rework or experiment with a mainspace page, so getting a CSD for that will be tough.  :::Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Follow on from discussion above)

• Cryptic, this "empower the reviewers" idea is objective on the following points: (i) Two reviewers hold the opinion that the draft is hopeless; (ii) The two reviewers hold the NPR right that can be easily removed if others don't trust them; and (iii) in DraftSpace/AfC, the two reviewers' opinion is to be trusted.
  RE (iii): I think a formal rejection and deletion process for drafts that are hopeless but don't fail a subjective criteria is unworkable. There are simply far too many compared to the number of experienced editors prepared to independently review the nominations, the process costs far outweigh the average value of a draft. Anyway, currently there is no process, WP:NMFD and its RfC is worth a re-reading. Currently, reviewers are not empowered/trusted to formally reject any draft; they just give advice or make empty threats of repeated rejection if problems aren't fixed, and so the hopeless drafts accumulate, until discarded under G13. The authors of the hopeless drafts get no clear timely message that their draft was hopeless. Thus, I suggest empowering the reviewers to be decisive with their decisions. Yes, it depends on two reviewers subjective opinion that a draft is hopeless, but that is not really any different to G10 relying on a single admin's opinion of what is an attack. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe two reviewers is a very nice idea but would require building some new system. CSD already includes two sets of eyes the nominator and the Admin who does the actual deletion.

CSD Gxx "Unsuitable/Not Notable Topic Draft". Any draft tagged for AfC on an evidently non-notable topic. If an AfC approved user and the patrolling Admin agree => delete. That would cut way down on the resubmissions of hopeless pages to AfC and reduce the wait. The submitter would get a CSD notice like "Welcome to Wikipedia. Standards exist that guide which topics are considered "notable" and suitable for a stand alone topic in the encyclopedia. The draft topic you submitted does not appear to meet these standards and may be removed. We encourage you to read ___ and ask any questions at the help desk."

Current we reject thousands of pages a year as not notable but we encourage the submitter to fix the page and resubmit. You can't fix notability. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two NPR qualified AfC reviewers, and an admin to do the actual deletions, yes. WP:NPR approved, not AfC approved. There is no AfC approval system. The NPR right must be requested, and can be removed if the reviewer does bad.

The two reviewers would have to agree that the draft is hopeless, the topic is not notable, as in definitely not notable. Such pages should be deleted immediately, the author should not be invited to fix the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we can almost do that within the existing system:

• Reviewer 1 rejects as Not Notable.
• Reviewer 2 sees the resubmission and agrees it's Not Notable - they CSD it under a new criteria
• Admin sees it, and if they agree, deletes. It's a 3 strikes system with three different people reviewing.

AfC is esentially a user right as you must be Admin approved to use the script and various user's have access revoked from time to time. No need to tie to NPR.

abusing the new CSD and doing real damage would be hard as three users are required. That's more participation than many MfDs amd AfDs get. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer 1, in the normal course of reviewing AfC submissions, tags the draft "Rejected, not even close to notable". Steer clear of the borderline notable topics, it is a huge task to evaluate all sources that exist.

Reviewer 2, who likes to review the rejected drafts, marks all for deletion that he agree with. He ignores the others.

CSD backlog working admin, who gets to know which reviewers are trusted and reliable, deletes all, with just a cursory look.

More than enough checks. An advantage is that nonsense submissions can be caught and deleted within the hour. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup that works well. Create a new Decline Reason (or use the existing ones?), a new subCat under (or use existing ones?) and a new CSD "Non-notable AfC Submissions" I think a new decline reason for the hopeless ones is better to separate out the most obvious ones to delete. Legacypac (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It calls for some stronger declined templates. I see many hopeless rejected drafts where the message is too soft, not clearly telling the author that fixing is probability not an option. Short of speedy deletion, the harshest would be, say, “{{hopeless1}}. When agreed by a reviewer2, they tag it {{hopeless2}}, which categorises the draft category:Hopeless drafts seconded. We could populate this category and review its contents before agreeing that everything out in it should be speedy deleted from now on. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just nominated Draft:Lilybella Bayliss for MfD. Perhaps a useful case in point? Why can't AfC reviewers end the pain sooner - reducing the backlog and avoiding the author making the 'hopeless little tweak-and-resubmit' cycle? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "you can't fix notability" is the wrong concept entirely. You can show something notable by finding more references. The only way to be sure there are not mroe references to be found is to look for them, and the only method we have here for getting people to to that is XfD. There are, to be sure, some subjects which are clear on the face are extremely unlikely to be referenceable, but actually specifying them tends to require some knowledge of the general subject area. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, a stronger decline message is a very good idea. I have been saying "Please do not submit again unless you can find good references."but it could be a little stronger than that. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "you can't fix notability" I mean that every topic is either notable or not notable before a word is written. We instinctively know some topics are notable and that others are not. In between are many topics were searching for sources sorts out notability, the cases DGG is talking about. I see this CSD path as for the clear cut cases, like how all CSD criteria work.

Typical examples where nothing about the Draft suggests notability:

• Joe is a youtuber with 25 subscribers
• Jane is an aspiring singer who hopes to record someday
• Xyz.com was founded in 2017 to market widgets
• Mr Black teaches 8th grade science in Springfield

Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why not extend the A7/A9 "credible claim of significance" filter so that it becomes applicable to AfC drafts, say at second time of submission?: Noyster (talk), 11:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the A7 use in NPP is considerably wider, we will confuse them. There might be a possible wording tha twould not be confusing-- I'm thinking of a rather general "altogether non-encyclopedic". DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"No indication topic qualifies for inclusion" ?Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"altogether non-encyclopedic" makes sense. I agree with DGG on the fact that A7 use in NPP is considerably wider and therefore this might have the potential to confuse NPP editors (like me). (But the caveat is that "no indication" for NPPrs is a condition met only when both the material within the article or sources presented within the article and sources available through reasonable research of the deletion requesting editor don't indicate notability; I know A7 doesn't mandate research by the deletion editor; but most NPPers I know follow the mentioned good form). Lourdes 02:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I'm speaking a little out of turn, but I find it hard to believe that we can see if a topic is notible purely on the text written. We base a topic for notability by its references. Using one of the examples above; "xyz.com was founded in 2017 to market widgets", in itself isn't notible, and the subject isn't. But we can't guarentee that there isn't a high-media level coverage regarding the subject for something else. Maybe the company got media attention due to copywrite infringement or similar. I think some topics are clearly more likely to pass WP:GNG, so maybe different strengths of wording for different submissions would be suitable.

On another note, is there a suitable way to automatically decline articles that are re-submitted without any changes? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(regarding your final point) That was discussed and rejected in a discussion at AFC. Long debate short, we don't want a bot doing a human's work (i.e. there are too many valid exceptions to make it realistic to implement). Primefac (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can (and we do) decline (and could CSD) many pages based solely on what is written. It is up to the submitter to put in the info that makes the topic notable, which instinctively everyone does. Some even embellish. If a submission comes in about a Nobel Prize winner that does not indicate their significance and it gets deleted, the page was junk and should be TNT'd anyway. Legacypac (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our goal here is to improve the encyclopedia. It is unlikely that we will get to consensus on a proposal to make it easier to delete what will be seen by some editors as work in progress. The whole WP:DEMOLISH thing is unresolved an unlikely to be resolved with a proposal like this. ~Kvng (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is rather defeating the point of drafts. It's fine if a draft doesn't adequately demonstrate notability, that's part of the reason why the page is a draft and not a mainspace article. There's a huge difference between "not notable" and "doesn't demonstrate notability", and it's perfectly possible to write an article about a notable subject which doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. The reviewers for this criterion will be focusing on what's in the article rather than what the subject is, and I highly doubt an AfC reviewer is going to conduct a detailed search for sources. Hut 8.5 21:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, let's say a page is taken to XfD, someone comes along and !votes Keep, then the creator of the page !votes Delete. Does G7 apply here as the creator now wants the page deleted, or should the XfD run to closure as someone wants to keep it? Iffy★Chat -- 09:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that G7 requires the tagged to be the sole author, ignoring bot edits, usually ignoring minor edits, including gnoming. Adding categories doesn’t make an author. If these conditions are met, there is usually a good reason to let it be deleted, such as a COI and inclusion of private information. I would ping the keep !voter and EnquiriesNZ as to whether they might change their mind given the new information of the sole author !voting delete. If the keep !voter intends to recreate following G7 deletion, do not G7 delete as it will lead to copyright non-compliance. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In my view, the moment someone says to keep at AfD, G7 is done with. There's no harm in letting the AfD finish its seven days. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• G7 is a speedy deletion criterion and those usually require that deletion is not controversial (G10 and G12 excepted to a limited amount). If someone argues to keep an article, G7 is moot because now the deletion is controversial. If there are other reasons for deletion, like private information, these can usually be handled by revision deletion without deleting the whole article if the subject itself is found worthy of inclusion and the information was removed by editing, so I have to disagree with SmokeyJoe on that. Regards SoWhy 07:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This just happened with 'Murica. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 31#'Murica was closed earlier today with a "retarget" close even though the creator supported deletion. A couple hours later, a random IP slaps a a {{db-g7}} tag on it and RHaworth deleted it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but that's an issue with the patrolling admin not actually looking into the situation and simply clicking "delete". I've had a number of G12s deleted out from under me when (I assume) they just looked at the copyvios report, saw a high number, and didn't investigate further. Also, for what it's worth, it's only happened once since I made this change, which is why I haven't said anything to RH directly. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  To wit, I've restored it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with all the above. G7 should be halted once someone even starts asking if should be kept. As SoWhy points out, "non-controversial" is the operative phrase. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under R3, redirects from page moves are not eligible unless the moved page was also recently created. Shouldn't there also be an exemption for pages that were recently moved, since sometimes a redirect might need to be deleted after a page move aimed at fixing unambiguous errors in a page name? ToThAc (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some selected previous conversations showing how we got here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that if a page was at some title for a significant amount of time then there may be other people on the internet who have linked to that article at the former title. If we move it to another title and delete the redirect then we break their links and contribute to link rot. If the moved page wasn't at that title for very long then this problem doesn't arise. Hut 8.5 20:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tagged an article in draft space for G3, and it was deleted as G3. I am reasonably sure that this is the first time I have tagged a draft as a blatant hoax, but it was incredible in that (without references) the story wasn't worthy of belief by a reasoning H. sapiens. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I will propose something that has been discussed above, and that is two (or possibly more than two) Draft criteria. If there are to be Draft criteria, G13 obviously should become D1, because it is only applicable in Draft space, and is a case of using G because anything else would be worse. The other criterion that I am proposing is D2, which would be drafts that substantially duplicate an existing article. I am aware that some editors say that this should not be a deletion criterion, but that the draft should be redirected to the article. My counter-question then is why is A10 available for articles that duplicate an article? Sometimes the deleted title is the wrong title (and the judgment that it duplicates an article is based on content). If we have A10, and we do, we should have D2, which is not an uncommon use of MFD, and is unambiguous and not redundant. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NO G13 does not only apply to Draft namespace. If a page substantially duplicates an existing article (and it's a temporary content fork to work out improvements) redirect it to the existing article and merge any useful content to the already mainspace article. Hasteur (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• G13 by design applied to userspace and WT:AFC subpages AFC drafts. We could now close of G13 of userspace and WT:AFC subpages, now that drafts are more clearly directed to go into DraftSpace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose the suggested "CSD#D2 drafts that substantially duplicate an existing article". Redirecting is superior, more efficient, less troublesome for making sure the action is always right, and provides for the remaining redirect to point the author to the right place, and to contain the newcomers edit history. Any editor can do the redirect, and a mistake is just as easily undone. WP:ATD is policy for a reason, and all the reasons apply equally or more so for drafts. Does A10 even get much used? I guess that it is needed for when the the new title is not a plausible redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• G13 applies to drafts and rejected/unsubmitted AfC submissions, the latter aren't necessarily in draft space and can be in user space. It is perfectly fine to have a draft which is substantially a duplicate of an existing article, people sometimes do that so that they can work on modifications to the article without their modifications going live immediately. There is no reason to stop people from doing that. The difference with A10 is that we don't allow content forks in mainspace and A10 only applies when the article is not a suitable redirect target. Hut 8.5 07:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think content forks should be allowed in draftspace either. People forking to draftspace typically don't let others know what they are doing, and content forks create attribution hazards, for example. Instead, I think WP:SPINOUTs should be discussed on the article talk page, and then done, all at once, to a new mainspace page with the spunout material cut from the article at almost the same time. Article wholesale re-writes are usually done on talk subpages. I think there should be a clearly stated rule: no forking to draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason we couldn't move G13 to a D1, with the understanding that D* criteria applied to drafts no matter their namespace, if we had more than just the one Draft criterion. I can't see any admin declining to delete "{{db-a7}}[[John Doe]] is [[Pakistani] Humanitarian,[[Internet activist]], Was born in [[Johi,Dadu]].an [[E-Hacker]]." solely because it was created in Wikipedia: or Template: or Category: or whatever namespace. —Cryptic 07:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello, @Robert McClenon:. What other draft CSDs were you thinking about establishing? To my mind, we definitely need a draft equivalent of WP:CSD#A7 so that the community does not need to waste its time with obviously hopeless cases like this. Or perhaps a kind of hybrid of A7 and U5, since I know that some draft articles don't contain any assertion of importance yet but the author eventually intends to correct that. What do you think? Pinging @Legacypac: and @Zyc1174: because they brought the issue up initially. Reyk _YO! 08:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, for the benefit of future readers of this talk page, the entire content of the Lokender draft was this: Lokender Singh Adhikari, an Avid Traveler, a Day–Night Dreamer and a Passionate Lover of Himalayas who has a high zest for driving whilst exploring new places in Himalayas & sharing back those Himalayan Travel experiences with the other fellow Travelers. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you on that. Now to convince someone to draft _{(pun intended)} this up for review as a new CSD criteria. However, this brings up another issue: We already have close to 50 CSD criteria, which isn't exactly handy, so maybe we can merge some other criteria to make way for the draft category? Zyc1174 _chat? ^{what I did} 09:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you ask, I would support D3 for drafts on persons that have no references and that are not do not look like encyclopedic draft articles but directory entries or social media profiles. That sort of submission really only has to do with people. Similar submissions about companies aren't common enough to be frequent and can either just be declined or tagged G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that "Duplicating an existing article" should be a valid deletion reason in ANY space. In userspace almost all are copy paste of the mainspace version with no attribution or changes usually by an account with less than three edits. Redirecting adds no value, does not help the long gone user and clutters up the "what links here".

Another group of articles are Draft space Dups which you can evaluate in Category:Declined_AfC_submissions specifically Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_already_existing, Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_needing_to_be_merged, and here: Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_a_duplicate (duplicates another submission). We typically decline these pages and G13 them eventually, not redirect them.

The biggest problem Category:Declined_AfC_submissions is Non-notable Bios (6500 in last edited the last 6 months, plus more specific types like music, academic, etc. and many of the "lacking reliable 3rd party sources" There are borderline cases where the creator can add refs to demonstrate notability, but in many cases it is VERY obvious that the subject does not merit an article or even a mention on Wikipedia.

The second biggest issue is organization declined as non-notable (3200 pages) or advertisement (1500 pages). Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have taken a trek through Miscellany for Deletion. I don't think that the volume of MFD can be significantly reduced, only slightly reduced, by adding CSD criteria. Nearly all of the pages that are nominated for MFD are in draft space or user space, and nearly all of them are drafts in the general sense of being apparently intended for article space. Most of them have been tagged because they are crud, but I can't write an objective unambiguous definition of crud. I would suggest three Draft criteria:

The first, D1, is the current G13. All of these should be applicable in Draft space or User space, so the D doesn't refer exclusively to draft space, but to drafts that could be in draft space.

The second, D2, is drafts that duplicate or substantially duplicate existing articles.

The third, D3, should, in my opinion, be a carefully written subset of drafts that would be A7 in article space: A draft page about a person that has no references and does not make a credible claim of significance. In my experience, drafts of this type, which are usually one sentence, are common, and have no references, and are social media directory entries, but Wikipedia is not a social medium or a directory, and the submitter usually doesn't have a clue what Wikipedia is and is not.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most well written "D3 No credible claim" Drafts I've seen in a while Draft:Christine_Liu. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? You postponed a G13 of a non-notable person just so you could make a point? Primefac (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the need to delete it and using as an example of something that could have been deleted earlier under a new CSD does not prevent G13 in a few days. There are 1000 plus more pages ready for G13 right now. Legacypac (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First point is organizing deck chairs on the Titanic. It's just renaming/moving the identifier to help justify the creation of the category. If all of these are applicable in multiple namespaces, they belong in the G series CSD. No for me.

On the second, you keep trying to argue that we should delete instead of spent a little time looking for alternatives after being fed this advice by multiple editors. No for me.

On the third, you seem to have forgotten the point We don't test notability/significance in draft space. I note the CCS you links is an essay on the A series notability CSD criteria. Draft space is supposed to be where people have a place to start developing articles without the excitable main space police looking at every nook/cranny to try and delete an article. As long as the author is improving the draft we grant them wider latitude in what they can have in draftspace.

TLDR: None of these would get my support at this time Hasteur (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hasteur - I'll point out that I took the trek through MFD in response to the thinking of some of the other editors here who thought that we needed more criteria for CSD in order to reduce the need to use MFD. In particular, some editors thought that we needed criteria to get rid of crud. I am in favor of getting rid of crud, but 'crud' isn't an unambiguous criterion. The proposed G14, hopelessly non-encyclopedic, isn't an adequate unambiguous criterion for crud. I didn't see any criteria that would significantly reduce the use of CSD. If you don't agree with my D2 and D3, then maybe you also disagree with the more general complaints that we need a G14, which I don't think can pass. Comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I disagree with the thesis that we need a G14 as well. Go back to the criteria list and show how these are Objective, Uncontestable, Frequent, and Nonredundant. Frequent I can see is reasonable, non-redundant is reasonable, but the way that this is phrased I don't think it meets the first two criterion as a few I've been seeing do seem to benefit from the discussion that MFD provides. In one specific case it raised visibility of an editor disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point (regarding draft namespace) after they had been sanctioned for disrupting wikipedia to prove a point (regarding draft namespace). That MFD is being snowed under many candidates is unfortunate (and perhaps Legacypac could reduce the rapidity at which they nominate into MFD) but it's not overwhelming as far as I can tell Hasteur (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Pages that clearly are not encyclopedic content except for Dictionary definitions"

Rational:

• WP:NOTEVERYTHING is Policy not just a guideline. It is hard to argue we need to preserve content that fails WP:NOT.
• A G criteria would cover Draft and Userspace (where this is most needed) as well as Article and other spaces where it is still useful (though overlaps with some A type CSDs).
• This fits with User:DGG's idea of "not encyclopedic" several sections up. It does not cover Duplicate topics (which may be hard to get consensus on a CSD for).
• As NOT policy evolves the CSD will always match.
• While this covers a wide range of inappropriate content, if the reviewing Admin can't immediately see which type of NOT content it is, it's probably not a clear NOTEVERYTHING CSD case and should be sent to a discussion.
• We should not need an XfD to delete a clear NOTEVERYTHING case.
• We should not be wasting time rereviewing NOTEVERYTHING AfC submissions. Currently the page is declined (often multiple times) than reviewed for G13 eventually, then deleted, which means at least three editors review it.
• I suggest carving out DicDef because these drafts may be expandable or mergeable. I don't see valid DicDefs as a problem in Drafts. Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Make CSD A criteria apply to draft space instead, for the same reason. Draft space is for drafting articles; if content in draft space is not relevant to the building of an article it should be deleted, and any of the A criteria are suitable for this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Far too broad and far too vague for a speedy deletion criterion. It would also allow me to speedily delete your userpage. Not that it's an objectionable userpage or anything, but it clearly isn't encyclopedic content. Hut 8.5 19:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - how can we narrow to allow acceptable content? Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you can without making it something completely different. Look at A11: it only considers a small case within WP:NOT, it's a case where everyone agrees the article should be deleted and it imposes a relatively objective test on the article. A criterion considering the whole of WP:NOT, by contrast, is always going to be extremely broad and depend heavily on subjective judgements. Editors frequently argue about whether some article violates WP:NOT and if so whether the problem is serious enough for deletion. I don't think this G14 would be much better than having a criterion of "anything the reviewing admin doesn't think is appropriate for the encyclopedia". Hut 8.5 20:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. not all the A criteria should apply. A7 for example, because the draft may just need expansion for this. but A3 might:

I adjustedthe wording a little to clarify this. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also the wording of A3:

"This applies to articles (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags, and/or images. This may also apply to articles consisting entirely of the framework of the Article wizard with no additional content." I think this is just as applicable to drafts. I'm not sure it applies to everything in userspace, though, so either we could add that it applies to drafts as well as articles, or add it as a Drafts criterion. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider G6 blank draft."db-blankdraft - For userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text, created by users who have been inactive for over a year." G2 test pages is also used to delete blank or nearly blank (ie repeat of title is only content) Drafts. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I would not think a category A CSD would apply to the draft space. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose per Hut 8.5. This proposal fails both the "objective" and the "uncontestable" requirements for new criteria. Whether a page meets WP:NOTEVERYTHING or not is frequently a debtated question in many XFDs (especially the WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTCRYSTAL sections which would all be covered by this proposed criterion). What is or is not encyclopedic is not a question admins should be allowed to judge without discussion. There is a reason why WP:NOTCSD mentions Reasons based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not: "a dictionary", "an indiscriminate collection of information", "a crystal ball", "a how-to list", etc. as the first item on a list of invalid reasons for speedy deletion. This proposal would also violate both WP:WHATISTOBEDONE (a part of WP:NOT!) and WP:PRESERVE, as well as many other policies that clearly state that most WP:NOT violations can and should be handled by editing, not deletion, whenever possible. Regards SoWhy 20:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC
• (edit conflict)Fairly strongly against this, in particular the G aspect. The concept of "encyclopedic content" mostly only refers to actual content, so this would at best be an A criterion. Beyond that, though, most CSD are supposed to be routine, noncontroversial, and fairly straightforward (some, like copyvio, can be complicated, but likewise must be dealt with speedily). While the lists at WP:NOTEVERYTHING isn't controversial, whether something applies could easily be subjective. Many articles are not created fully-formed, and may be built in stages by new editors. That's why A7 doesn't apply if something claims importance, even it doesn't have verifiable, reliable sources proving notability, despite WP:V and WP:NPOV being policy all the same; we send them to AfD. AfD is the proper venue for this sort of thing, and it can handle it just fine. I fear this proposal would be used to WP:BITE newcomers, be quite subjective, and isn't even necessary. I do not share the fears of clutter in Draft space. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per SoWhy, I don't see G14 being made objective or uncontestable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment in passing that I, for one, think that the guideline not to Bite the newcomers does at least as much harm as good, at least as it is applied. I won't disagree with any proposed criterion only because it is bitey. A few newcomers need to be bitten. But I disagree with proposed A14. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should be expanded to a G to catch User and Draft space pages. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are drafts of obviously invented subjects really created so frequently that MFD/G13 can't handle them? Regards SoWhy 20:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are numerous. They waste MfD time. G13 requires 6 months unedited, which is 5 months and 29 days longer than these type of pages should be allowed to exist. Unless there is an argument that "obviously invented" content is desirable in parts of the site, there is no good reason not to broaden this CSD's coverage Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples? I've just looked through all the drafts currently nominated at MfD and I didn't see any I thought would qualify. That suggests that either there aren't many of these things or that they aren't being sent to MfD. A11 also has a significance test borrowed from A7, which isn't a good idea in draft space. Draft space is intended as somewhere articles can be developed until they are suitable for mainspace, it isn't appropriate to apply all mainspace standards (such as significance/notability) to them. Hut 8.5 21:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would trust Legacypac to tag pages as obviously invented. Obviously invented by the author and involving no others. Having made that assessment, it would be better deleted promptly to give a quick clear message to the author, and to prevent other editors wasting time on it.
  To trial the idea, someone could make a categorising tag for Legacypac to use. Later, we can review the pages he would tag, and if agreed all should be speedied, start deleting them then. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant." The "test" excludes pages with a credible claim of significance from being CSD'd, which seems a fine exclusion in Draft Space as well. I'll post some examples from decliend AfC submissions (they exist in userspace and non-AfC Draft too) Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

• Most everything that lands here: Category:AfC submissions declined as jokes
• Many pages that land here: Category:AfC submissions declined as a neologism like Draft:Meaf, Draft:Millenimony, Draft:Wuzy,

Legacypac (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually there aren't many pages in the first category I'd be prepared to delete under A11. Quite a few qualify as vandalism (and I've deleted some as such) but there aren't many where the author invented some new concept and then decided to write about it. Drafts are intended as a safe space where it's OK to write something that doesn't have to be acceptable straightaway. That includes writing about a topic without having to demonstrate that it's notable, which means that applying significance-related tests isn't a good idea. Hut 8.5 22:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that these categories might over-represent borderline cases, as clear cut cases might have been squeezed into other criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And various editors patrol these categories and seek deletion (vandalism etc) so there are many more cases then the cats suggest. Legacypac (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If people are able to get these pages deleted as vandalism or some other speedy deletion criterion then we don't need to expand A11 to cover this case. A large portion of those neologisms were declined on notability grounds and make it very clear that the concept wasn't invented by the author (such as by providing citations). Hut 8.5 07:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• User:R.prasanna2892/Prasanna Venkatesh's Crazy equation Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we bold or put "note" in all caps here -> Note: Not all numbers are used, as some criteria have been repealed.

TaxAct2018 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC) TaxAct2018 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Primefac (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm proposing at summary level is that the A-series criteria should apply to any namespace in which encyclopedic content is expected to be produced (i.e. sandboxes and userspace drafts) but I'll accept that this is likely more palatable as a proposal only to apply the A-series criteria to the Draft: namespace. Reviewing the currently active criteria (A1, A2, A3, A5, A7, A9, A10, A11) I see none that should not also apply to qualifying content posted as a draft. I've suggested this several times in other places but never myself as a formal proposal, so I'm doing it now.

The rationale is that the Draft: namespace is intended to develop content meant to publish as an article, and for no other reason. Drafts, like articles, that show no indication that their content will be of use in constructing the encyclopedia should not be hosted even temporarily. While we're lenient with drafts that are of poor quality that show some indication of future utility (and we should be) we needn't keep around content so obviously unsuitable that it could never contribute to an article or part of an article. As one example from today, Draft:Bryce Morgan is a new draft about a high school athlete with approximately 0% chance of notability. Were this article posted as an article it would have already been deleted, but since it's been posted as a draft it will remain there for seven days while an MfD discussion proceeds to attract nothing but "delete" !votes, unless the creator comes back around. We should be able to skip this process.

• Support as proposer; as usual I am open to suggestions on how to improve the language of the proposal, although I think this one is pretty simple. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As written Oppose. Again we have the same arguments. There are some CSD that I would like to apply to Draft space without having to go through MFDs for (A1, A2, A3, A5, A10 (though you could argue that a protected redirect to the mainspace would be better), and A11). A7 and A9 I have a very hard time on. A7 and A9 touch at the heart of notability and verifyability that Draft space is supposed to protect nacent articles from in mainspace. I could see a deferred A7/A9 (if after X period there isn't a Credible claim of significance) but the problem is if there's a tool out there, it runs the risk of being misused. cc @Ivanvector: Hasteur (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I advocated a variant of this (any A-series criterion on a draft that hadn't been edited in 6 months) for a long time, but it was made redundant by G13's expansion to non-AFC drafts. I don't follow MFD much; is it really that urgent that these can't sit for six months and get a totally-routine G13 deletion? Or do we see enough of these high-school athlete drafts that get continuously edited and/or re-re-re-submitted enough that they're never G13s?
  At a minimum, I'd much rather see an A3 analogue used for blank/essentially-blank drafts, instead of watching people continue to abuse G2 and G6 for those. —Cryptic 04:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The G criteria already sufficiently deal with non-mainspace pages. The A criteria are rightly only applied to mainspace articles; draft space and user space drafts of articles should be given a LOT more leeway, because we encourage users to use that space to build future articles over time. Speeding deleting such work defeats the whole purpose of allowing new article work the space to breathe outside of the mainspace. --Jayron32 04:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the fact that a draft would meet, say, A7 doesn't mean the draft has no value to the encyclopedia, because draft space is intended for developing content which isn't suitable for mainspace right now. Applying all mainspace standards to drafts defeats the point of having draft space. Hut 8.5 07:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jayron32 and Hut8.5. We created the possibility to have "safe" spaces exactly so people can develop articles in peace. Considering the rush to delete already evident in mainspace, I don't see how driving people from Draft- or userspace is going to be in the best interest of the project. With WP:ACTRIAL we already force new users to create articles outside mainspace. Let them at least develop their articles there in peace. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No You cannot easily tell the purpose of the sandbox or draft. Draft space does not have to be for whole articles, and some people develop fragments, lists of helpful information or templates there, which are not ever going to be articles. Some sandboxes are basically junk, and are used to practice editing or markup. There is no need to delete these with any article criterion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not to pile on but oppose per above. G covers what it needs to just fine, and applying A criteria to drafts and userspace defeat the whole purpose of drafts and userspace. Do some folks abuse those areas? Yes. But the goal is to work on projects without the quick and harsh scrutiny given to articles in mainspace, hopefully encouraging creation. It is too much to expect folks to create articles whole cloth. Drafts are cheap and as GB says, we cannot know what a draft will become. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per SoWhy and others. Piling on to oppose this proposal seems prudent to me, as variations needn't recur. Logic fails any suggestion that editing space given as sanctuary from the expectations of mainspace editing can be regulated to the same stringent standards while delivering any respite at all. The end escapes me that calls for such contrary means, without justification (please do tell)?--John Cline (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the draft space is intended for users to be able to write their articles out of the way, gradually, over time. Requiring users to ive up to mainspace standards in the first revision is unreasonable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a good idea for draft or user namespace. I do admit I have applied something like this in some other namespaces (mostly the Template namespace, most other namespaces are hard to reach accidentally), but I am not sure this is worth codifying for these namespaces. —Kusma (t·c) 22:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Promising draft}} (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test)

Around the time G13 was expanded to include all old drafts, the template "Promising draft" was created to flag drafts that showed enough promise that they should preserved. Some viewpoints on the template at the time, ie [2], [3] assumed that such a template would amount to a delay, similar to an AFC comment or a dummy edit to give the draft another 6 months of time for improvement. Others were of the opinion that a mere delay in speedy deletion was insufficient, ie [4], and drafts with the template would be permanently immune to speedy deletion under G13.

The discussion here touched on the topic, but the focus was not really on the wording or finality of the tag, and discussion was somewhat distracted by the fact that the G13 expansion was still under discussion.

In practice, we are around 6 months after the G13 expansion so a couple hundred of these drafts, which generally were tagged and then not improved in the last half year, are coming up for G13 again and being consistently (though not unvaryingly) deleted at MfD ie:

• WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Delta Force (film series)
• WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Charles do Vale de Souza
• WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ali Anjum
• WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Julius Espat.

I suggest that it would be a better use of Wikipedia's collective administrative time to advise stale draft patrollers to do a sanity check on tagged drafts and promote to mainspace or AfC if acceptable and otherwise tag for G13 (leaving MfD as the exception rather than the rule), as opposed to forcing ~100% of such tagged articles through a rubber-stamp MfD. My proposed rewording would match the "delay" practice, while the existing wording corresponds to an "indefinite" practice. Since the template talk page is probably poorly-watched, bringing it here for discussion more focused on the template's workflow. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, my intention as the closer of that discussion was that the delay on G13 should be indefinite for articles tagged this way. That said, I'm saying this after only a brief look at the discussions, and consensus can change. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as a heavy processor of G13 pages I've encountered many of these tags. I even did a search for them to quantify the amount of use. Quality varies from "the tagger should have moved the page to mainspace" to "whay the heck did they tag this??" I'm currently extrememly inappropriately restricted from moves to mainspace so I've been submitting the semi worst to MfD, the beter ones to AfC and a few of the worst directly to G13 (after the template changed to not require MfD). A few dozen were SvG draftified pages that got wacked recently. Someone changed the template back to the original version which requires MfD, which I don't support. If someone thinks a draft is worth preserving, postpone deletion 6 months or even better actually work on it or even move it to mainspace yourself. Just leaving a template that is supposed to insulate the draft from normal deletion process without even adding a comment about why the topic is worthy or doing anything to move it forward is a little annoying. Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacypac, I think you should not send any {{Promising draft}} tagged pages to any CSD criterion, but instead list them at MfD, noting your opinion of the promising tagging, and pinging the tagged to the discussion. CSD criteria are for cases where there is no conceivable plausible reason for discussion. If any editor has asserted that the page should not be deleted, they have self-nominated as a defender of the page. One useful outcome of the MfD discussion could be the education of an editor who too easily applies that tag. Misuse of the tag is disruptive, and MfD is the appropriate forum to review its use in specific cases. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bottom line: I think this template would work best as a sort of reverse prod. The rationale: When G13 was expanded to all drafts, the consensus seemed to be that if a draft is promising, it should not automatically be deleted after six months; administrators should use their discretion. This just creates a mechanism for that to be formalized. (By the way, when editors were simply leaving AFD comments about a draft being promising, drafts with these comments were routinely deleted. I can provide examples on request.) I see no problem with "insulating the draft from [the] normal deletion process", where the normal process is everything gets thrown in the trash after six months. Some articles may not be ready for mainspace but could be improved by future editors, which is what this template is for (and originally what the draftspace was for). The rationale for the creation of G13 was that garbage was piling up, and this template is designed for drafts that aren't garbage. If someone disagrees with a tag, what is the problem with exposing the draft to the light of day at MfD for other editors to review? Is there too high a volume of tags for the drafts all to go through MfD? If someone is applying the template indiscriminately, that's a behavior issue to bring up with the tagging editor. We don't have a problem with dealing with PRODs this way. Is something different here? (Is the fundamental problem that some editors think no drafts should be hanging around >6 mos without active improvement? If so, that's a whole different can of worms.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is proposing here that G13 be automatic. The problem is that a significant portion of the drafts tagged with this template and unedited for the last six months quite clearly are garbage, and running them through a token MfD is a waste of time (and yes, a not insignificant burden on MfD). VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose that truly promising drafts be insulated from deletion? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears that this tag is being used on ~120 articles. I clicked through some and most seemed like reasonable drafts. Even if 50% were to be nominated at AfD, that is only 60 drafts we're talking about. Am I missing something? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]