Related to #Stricter policies at Articles for deletion above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (hereinafter referred to as WP:AFD) is not marked as either a policy or a guideline. Yet it is the description of the process for deleting articles where speedy criteria and "Proposed deletion" do not apply, and is linked from both Wikipedia:Deletion policy (a policy) and Wikipedia:Deletion process (a guideline). An ongoing RfC at Template talk:Article for deletion#RFC: Add Instruction Not to Move seeks to change the text of Template:Article for deletion/dated in a way that would make it differ fundamentally from WP:AFD - specifically, that the template would explicitly prohibit page moves during an AFD, whereas WP:AFD would continue to explicitly permit them.

Should the pages describing a process (whether policy, guideline or other) themselves drive, or may they be driven by, the text of a template used in that process? Where they differ, which one has precedence?

I would like the status of WP:AFD clarified. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

AFD is more a workspace for the implementation of the policy for deletion, and neither is a policy or guideline. It is expected that editors follow the filing process at AFD as given to make it easy, but we aren't going to take action against those that accidentally misfile or go outside the instructions there. --Masem (t) 20:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that all of the XfDs (including RM) aren't tagged as either policy, guideline, information page, etc, so that might be of interest as well. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any 'process' pages (XfD, AN, arbitration, the noticeboards, etc.) are marked as policies or guidelines, are they? Policies and guidelines are about editing; these are just descriptions of how the process works. And if you're going to use a process, it seems obvious that you should follow the instructions unless there's a good reason not to. We have processes to make it easier to work together on common tasks—often ones like AfD that have to handle hundreds of discussions every week—and if someone decides they don't want to follow them just because the page doesn't have a particular template at the top, frankly they're just being a dick. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to create a template for such process pages that can sit at the top of such pages, something like "This is a process page that supports the implementation of (policy or guideline). It itself is not a policy or guideline, and these instructions should not be used to directly guide content or behavioral decisions of the community." , since we do have so many of these. --Masem (t) 12:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You don't make WP:WIKILAWYERing go away by coddling the trolls. You make it go away by ignoring it; best practices are best practices, and those that argue that we can ignore best practices because of a label on the page where the best practices are written are not people we need to consider in these matters; they need to be stopped at all costs, not catered to with more faux-legalise to act as weapons in their arsenal of bullshit. This is just further WP:CREEP, and not useful. We need less, not more, of this kind of thing. --Jayron32 13:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Redrose64 created this thread in response to a question/discussion she and I were having on another page. She called something a guideline that wasn't labeled a guideline and I told her I found this confusing. I'd appreciate it if you guys would be a bit nicer and stop calling me a dick, a troll, telling people to ignore me, etc. This idea that we shouldn't clearly label things because it's too bureaucratic... I find it strange. It is a general principle of good documentation that documentation should be clear and accurate. People shouldn't have to read between the lines, discover something through experience, etc. If a page is regarded to be as strong as a policy or guideline, and it is not labeled as such, then why leave good faith readers to guess how strong it is when we can just tell them? This seems illogical, counter-intuitive, etc. If anything, the wikilawyering here is not me asking the question "should this be labeled as a guideline?", but rather folks trying to say that things that have not passed an official RFC giving them the strength of a policy/guideline are a policy/guideline, shortcutting our system for gathering consensus and allowing the argument that any random page is some kind of secret PAG. How confusing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

My comment wasn't directed at you (or anyone specifically). I have no idea what prior discussions you were having with Redrose64. – Joe (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Damn dirty trolls aside -- AfD (as well as MfD, TfD, CfD etc) drive the majority of Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Deletion process (a P and a G, respectively). A lot of what these pages say is along the lines of "the policy is that you follow what it says at WP:AFD". jp×g 17:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• WP:AFD and the other "process pages" like it ought to be made into guidelines, but only after being substantially rewritten and condensed. The reason I think they should be guidelines is to prevent WP:CREEP--to make it so that consensus is required for substantive changes--because otherwise, we end up with a page like what WP:AFD is today: bloated and full of statements that probably don't have consensus, are outdated, and that few people probably read or follow. (I would oppose the promotion of the current pages to guidelines, for the same reason.) Levivich 16:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree that all process and procedure pages should be approved as guidelines. The main distinguishing characteristic between policies, guidelines, and general "ways of working" guidance is the degree of consensus support underlying them. For all day-to-day operating procedures to become guidelines would mean we would require a high degree of broad community support for each one and every subsequent change. This would be onerous and inflexible, and for many procedures, unnecessary: for the most part, the editors most interested in a given area should have the ability to quickly revise and refine their ways of working, as they are the ones most directly affected. Where there is conflict between ways of working and community-approved guidelines or policies, there should be a discussion to bring them back into alignment.

  I sympathize with the problem of changes to guidance pages which do not reflect consensus practices or views. However this is an ongoing issue regardless of the label on the page, and I think the ensuing discussions proceed in much the same way regardless of how the page is categorized.

  I also sympathize with the problem of guidance pages becoming bloated. For better or worse, English Wikipedia's collaborative environment and consensus-based decision-making traditions make it really hard to copy edit ruthlessly. The path of least resistance is to try to keep everyone happy by letting them add their viewpoints. Most editors just want to get on with editing articles instead of debating how to keep guidance concise and organize it in a way to support this. (Trying to write something in a group conversation is just very difficult.) isaacl (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• The XfDs are process pages, and they derive authority from Wikipedia:Deletion policy. As process pages, they work to keep discussions in a central, well-known, and easily-found place. Where XfD pages produce outcomes that are not deletion, then the outcome relies on WP:Consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not "marked" as a policy or guideline because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. WP:AFD in itself literally functions as a policy/guideline even without being marked as such and is a supplement of the deletion policy. Using common sense, anyone reading WP:AFD should already be able to infer that whatever is stated on that page should be followed the same as any policy/guideline and is itself documented community practice. I don't see any reason to change the status just for the sake of changing it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Can (and shall) controversial information about non-BLP subjects — with no concerns about sourcing or due-ness — be avoided from discussing in article-leads, simply because they are controversial and might escalate vandalism? How does NOTCENSOR apply in such cases?

Opinions are welcome at this discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• From my experience, anything relating to castes is potentially controversial. Figuring out what information should and should not go in the lead is a matter of editorial consensus. Nothing “must” be included in the lead, but nothing is barred from the lead. NOTCENSOR applies to whether information should be discussed (somewhere) in an article, not whether that something is highlighted in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ditto that it's editorial consensus, and NOTCENSOR and vandalism aren't the primary considerations. I tend to find the two main factors in the lede decision are a high degree of notability regarding the article topic suggesting inclusion in the lede, and a high degree of complexity and nuance to depict the controversy in an NPOV way suggesting absence from the lede. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the other two. Consider an article like Gary Glitter, a famous musician who was convicted of child sex offences. There was quite a lot of discussion around how much focus needed to be given to it in the lede. I appreciate that that article is a BLP, but the same principle applies to any article that it's subject-specific and should be conesnsus driven by the editors working on that particular article. Blanket rules are likely to be abused by those trying to downplay controversy that does deserve mention. Theknightwho (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Simply assuming that there are no concerns about due-ness or sourcing is a pretty big leap. I'm also generally cautious about people invoking WP:NOTCENSORED for the purposes of arguing for inclusion - it runs the risk of derailing arguments by effectively focusing on the weakest opposition (or violating WP:AGF by ascribing that motive to absolutely all opposition.) Looking at the discussion at Talk:Baidya#Lead, there were several objections raised, not just the fact that it went against a longstanding (local) consensus. For one thing it seems like your edits clearly went against WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, which to me is often a red flag that they were WP:UNDUE (since if nobody previously thought it was due to even mention this in the body, how can you reasonably make the argument that it's due to add it directly to the lead?) Or, in other words - at best, NOTCENSORED only allows you to include something; it doesn't require it, so the WP:ONUS is still on you to get consensus, even in a situation where you think everyone's reasons for disagreeing with you are terrible. Because of that, you would be better off focusing on reasons why you think it is leadworthy (its importance to the topic, etc) instead. Also, since you implied the edits reverting you could be vandalism - it's important to understand that an edit made in good faith is never vandalism. No matter how strongly you believe that their arguments are wrong and invalid, as long as they sincerely believe them and sincerely believe they are improving the article or Wikipedia a whole by making them, it at least passes the very low threshold of not being vandalism. --Aquillion (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Is an editor permitted to move an article from article space into draft space while an Article for Deletion nomination is pending? I am asking because I thought that I knew the answer, but it appears that there is disagreement. I had thought, once an AFD was properly started, moving the article to draft space was not permitted. In the past, if an article has been moved to draft space, it has been moved back to article space, and the AFD allowed to run for seven days, with Draftify being one of the possible closes. However, in the most recent case, the article was moved to draft space, and then a non-admin did a Speedy Close of the AFD, stating that the AFD rationale is no longer valid, because the article was moved to draft space.

So what is the policy? Can an article be moved to draft space, closing the AFD? Or should the article be left in article space to allow the deletion discussion to run for the usual seven days? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The AFD template on the article says not to remove the template and not to blank the page. It doesn't say not to move the page. (The template on a page that is pending MFD has a longer list of things not to do, including moving the page.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's generally unwise to boldly draftify an article if an AfD is pending, especially if at least one editor has expressed opposition to draftification. WP:AFDTODRAFT, which might be the guidance that you're looking for, states that [w]hile there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. So, there's currently no policy prohibition, though there are ways in which it can be disruptive. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Like Mhawk says, there's a long-standing consensus that moving articles during an AfD is disruptive. I also can't imagine that an article at AfD would be eligible for draftication, unless there hadn't been any !votes for any other outcome. Even then, incubation in draftspace is a possible outcome of an AfD, so the early close is ending the discussion prematurely and pre-empting consensus. It might be justified in some WP:IAR edge cases, but otherwise this sounds like a bad close and should be reversed. – Joe (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Joe Roe, User:Mhawk10. I have observed this at least several times, usually where the person moving the article to draft space had previously moved it to article space. That is, the editor moving the article into draft space was previously the proponent or author of the article. It was in draft space, either because it was in review or because it had been moved to draft space once already. Then the proponent decides that it is ready for article space. Someone nominates it for AFD at this point. Then the proponent moves it back to draft space. If this sounds like gaming the system, that is because I think it is gaming the system. My own opinion is that the current policy is wishy-washy, but that is only my opinion. My own opinion is that, because it doesn't prohibit this behavior, it enables a proponent to try to sneak a page into article space and then run back. But maybe the community wants the policy to be ambiguous. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I will add that I have in particular observed this behavior in an area where the notability guidelines have been ambiguous for more than ten years, films that are pending release. Part of the problem is that the notability guideline has been ambiguous, and an effort to clarify the guidelines resulted in No Consensus. A typical sequence is:

• A. There is a draft.
• B. A proponent moves it to article space.
• C. A New Page reviewer moves it back to draft space, saying Not Ready for Article Space, Incubate in Draft Space.
• D. The proponent moves it to article space a second time.
• E. Another editor nominates it for deletion.
• F. Now the proponent moves it back to draft space.
• G1. An admin moves it back to article space and the AFD continues, or
• G2. A non-admin speedy-closes the AFD.

So, I think that the policy is ambiguous, but maybe the community wants it to be ambiguous. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If I saw in the wild what you are describing above and the editor making these moves were either experienced or did this across multiple articles, I would start to look for signs of UPE in the editor’s history. It’s a bit odd.
I think the most natural thing to do would be to treat this akin to BLARing a page that is already up for AFD. Which is to say, please don't do it if you are not the uninvolved closer. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd be a bit more charitable and say that it's not gaming the system, but a common misunderstanding of the system that we wilfully perpetuate by treating draftspace and AfC as if they exist outside our usual collaborative norms. That is, we tell new editors wanting to write a new article that they must make a "draft" and that this will be reviewed for "publication". They probably go through a cycle at least once (either creating in mainspace and having it moved to draft, or having an AfC submission declined) that teaches them that if their draft is not suitable for publication, it is returned to them to work on further. Finally they get to a point where the reviewers are satisfied and... whoops, now it's at AfD and a bunch of other people are saying that it isn't suitable for publication after all! In that context, trying to move it back to draftspace to work on further is an entirely reasonable response based on how they've been led to believe Wikipedia works. Of course, in reality, the "draft" was never theirs and whether it was suitable for "publication" never had anything to do with their work or the decisions of reviewers, but was entirely dependent on community consensus on the merits of the topic it's about. But how the hell were they supposed to know that? We need to communicate better to these editors how mainspace ownership and collaboration actually works – or rather, we need to stop deliberately misleading them with the fantasy peer review and "publication" process offered by AfC. I'd say that starts with ending the review–decline–resubmit cycle: articles that start in mainspace should stay there, and drafts should only be moved once. In other words, if we get rid of steps C and D in your sequence, I think there's a good chance it will naturally eliminate F and G. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Two general things we can that should deter these cases without the need for specially tailored rules directed at regular participants in AfDs is (i) say that if an AfD is irregular in that the content radically changes other than unambiguous improvement, including a move, then it is then not suitable for NAC, and (ii) the closer of the AfD is to interpret the question as to whether the content belongs in mainspace under the given name. Then, we will only don't delete the article if the closer interprets the AfD as asking for draftify.

Apart from my general aversion to rule creep, I'm happy with codifying that this behaviour is unacceptable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I have observed some UPE editors using this technique in an attempt to avoid completion of the AfD. MarioGom (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that a rule saying not to move an article to draft space while an AFD is open is a good idea and has a low wp:creep risk. To me it looks like it should be too obvious to need saying. The AFD period is brief, and I see no non-disruptive reason for such a move. BTW, we should understand that AFC is a tough venue. Edge case articles that would survive in mainspace are usually rejected in AFC because the folks there are playing it safe, the alternative being "go out on a limb" with an edge case article. We should both thank the AFC folks for what they do and also be nice to the folks trying to get their article through AFC. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

First, I agree with User:North8000 that codifying a rule against moving an article while it is being discussed for deletion is a minimal change in scope, and would add that I have seen it done often enough that I think it should be either forbidden or permitted, and I think forbidden is a better approach.

Second, to User:Joe Roe, in the cases that I have observed, I am willing to assume good faith and say that sometimes it isn't UPE. (Sometimes it is.) In particular, it happens with future films, and the editors who do it are simply ultras, fanatics, willing to game the system to get an upcoming film listed.

Third, to User:Joe Roe, this is related to the problem of move-warring between article space and draft space. The repeated moving of an article from article space to draft space is move-warring, and should be avoided. If a proponent moves the page back into article space, the proper response is not to draftify it again, but to nominate it for deletion. But after it is nominated for deletion, sometimes the proponent then tries to pull it back into draft space.

Fourth, I was about to ask what BLARing a page is. It is cutting down to a redirect. Redirect wars are common in music disputes.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Fifth, the speedy close in the case in point was done in good faith because the closer didn't know that the move to draft space was out of process. The move to draft space was not in good faith, but the speedy close was in good faith; the closer just thought that they were wrapping up a loose end. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think moving to draft space should not be allowed during an AFD. Instead someone who wants to do that should propose it in the AFD discussion, then others can support or oppose that idea. Also any move during the discussion is a bit disruptive, though I can see why it may happen, eg error in title; title is an attack on someone eg "Joe Blow (loser)". If someone wants to change the scope of the article by renaming, then that should be discussed in the AFD anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • As I have outlined, the problem has to do with an editor who is determined to have an article in article space, and has moved it into article space after it was moved back into draft space. But then, when it is nominated for deletion, the editor says, "Oh. Now I am willing to compromise and have it in draft space rather than have an AFD." And they hadn't been willing to compromise earlier. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I have had this arise as an issue recently. In my view, if the gist of the AfD nomination is that the subject is notable but the article needs to be completely rewritten, and a review of the article confirms this, then a move to draft space is immediately justifiable. It immediately removes poor content from article space, thereby improving the encyclopedia, and does not disrupt the discussion of the AfD question of whether such an article should exist in Wikipedia. The article is still visible, and quite frankly, because improvements to the article can be made in any space, it is less disruptive to the discussion than substantial efforts to improve the article while it remains in mainspace. BD2412 T 01:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

User:BD2412 - I can see that this case will occasionally happen. But, if so, is it unreasonable to wait until the AFD is concluded in 7 days with a conclusion to Draftify? Alternatively, if everyone agrees, can the AFD be SNOW-closed? Also, are you, BD2412, saying that the AFD should then continue while the article is in draft space? That isn't consistent with current policy. Do we need an exception to current policy, or can we simply wait until the AFD concludes? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I am saying, let's not let the bureaucratic be the enemy of the good. If the article is a hoax or an unfixably non-notable subject, then the move should not matter and the discussion should conclude as it concludes. If the issue is that the article is in poor shape (WP:TNT) is raised often, that's another matter. BD2412 T 03:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that User:BD2412 is saying that an AFD can continue (conclude as it concludes) while the article is no longer in article space. Is that correct? If that is correct, then does the close of the AFD resolve the matter of what space the page should be in, if any? If so, that would mean that moving the article to draft space does not stop the AFD. In the cases I have been describing, the purpose of moving the article to draft space was to stop the AFD. So are you saying that an AFD should run to conclusion, then that means that moving the article should not stop the AFD, which should continue. That is interesting. Do other editors agree? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the AfD can continue running. I think this is no different than an AfD continuing to run after an article remaining in mainspace has undergone a complete overhaul that removes the problems that prompted the AfD nomination and adds a dozen high quality reliable sources. I would give as an example John T. Newton, which was nominated looking like this (three lines, no sources). BD2412 T 19:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Do other editors agree with User:BD2412 that an AFD can continue running after the article is moved into another namespace? I think that is a very good idea, and would prevent the devious use of the move back into draft space. If so, that would mean that the author of a questionable article is taking the risk of an AFD, and, once properly started, the AFD can continue. Do other editors agree that moving an article out of article space does not stop an AFD that was validly started? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In other words, a page can only be nominated for AFD if it is in article space when nominated, but the AFD continues in any space. Is this correct? If so, administrators should be aware of this provision, so that they will know that draftifying cannot be used to stop an AFD.

As I said at the beginning, moving an article into draft space to stop an AFD is a relatively common abuse. It should be clarified that it doesn't work. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I doesn't "sit" right with me to be having an AFD without a corresponding "article". I agree with the others who said Draftify during an AFD should be prohibited. AFD is a formal process that usually provides a clear answer and once started, should conclude. As with everything, there are exceptions. Hoaxes can be CSDed, which immediately ends the AFD. This same thing happens when one editor AFDs an article and subsequently someone else says CSD G11. But for the more routine case of a notability issue, there is no great rush. MB 00:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• If the AfD is running, DO NOT move the article to draftspace without closing the AfD. If you are not competent to close the AfD (eg too inexperienced, or involved with the article) then do not Draftify, but instead !vote in the AfD your opinion for why it should be draftified. If consensus is to draftify, then the AfD can be closed per that consensus. Seven days is not strictly required, especially if consensus is for a non-deletion result. I can easily imagine that an AfD nominator may very easily agree with the first comment or two that advise to draftify, and the nominator withdraws the AfD and draftifys. This would be an AfD speedy close and subject to the WP:Draftify conditions. Alternatively, the AfD consensus may be SNOW Draftify, meaning the page can be draftified per consensus at AfD overcoming objections such as from the author.
  Leaving the AfD running on a draftified page would be disruptive to the AfD process. The templates would go red, and scripts wouldn’t work, and later editors browsing AfD would be frustrated. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• User:SmokeyJoe raises good points about why moving a page out of the article namespace during an AFD is a bad idea, and will mess up the scripts and templates. However, SmokeyJoe appears to be assuming that I am asking about a good faith effort, when he refers to whether the editor is competent to close the AFD. The instances that I am asking about are not good faith editing. The cases that I am asking about have to do with editors who have pushed a draft into article space, typically after it has already been draftified at least once. So then a reviewer nominates it for deletion. SmokeyJoe has been involved recently in other discussions about draftification, and we agree that an editor has the right to object to draftification, and to insist on keeping an article in article space. But SmokeyJoe has, I think, also agreed that in that case, the author is taking the risk that an AFD discussion will be started. The question is about a namespace two-step, in which the author first pushes the page into article space, and then tries to pull it back into draft space to defeat the AFD that is an appropriate response to pushing the article into article space.
• So it isn't a matter of whether the author is competent to close the AFD; they are not only involved but are playing a game. The question is how should the community deal with an editor who tries to stop an AFD by hiding the article in non-article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• I have seen two different ideas. First, some editors think that moving the article out of article space should be forbidden. Second, some editors think that the move should be ignored and the AFD should go on anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think my answer silently covered the “bad faith” page proponent.

  My answer implies that draftification is forbidden by an INVOLVED editor, as they aren’t able to closed the AfD. This means that the editor who ignored AfC negative responses and mainspaced the draft anyway can interfere if the AfD heading towards deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  • User:SmokeyJoe - I think that your last sentence is missing a negative, or something. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

    This means that the editor who ignored AfC negative responses and mainspaced the draft anyway can’t interfere if the AfD is heading towards deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  An editor who breaks the rules and tries to shut down the AfD by draftifying should be reverted, warned, and blocked if they do it again.

  G7 does not prevent an AfD from finding a consensus to delete.

  Note that if an AfD determines a topic to be non-notable, this makes its non-notability a fact in any future MfD on future drafts. MfD does not examine notability, but it does pay attention to past AfD results. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  In the cases that I am discussing, the proponent isn't trying to shut down the AFD because it is "heading towards deletion", but tries to shut it down before it is heading anywhere, because they don't want an AFD. They just want what they want, and are playing a game. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  It appears that User:SmokeyJoe is either saying or implying that the article may not be draftified or otherwise moved during the AFD, because the AFD must be closed first. This comes back to the question of whether the template on the article should include a statement that it should not be moved during the deletion discussion. A page that is at MFD already says that it should not be blanked or moved. A page that is at AFD says that it should not be blanked.

  It now seems that this is about the template. Sure, the AfD template should say “Do not move the page while the AfD is in progress”. In a separate process, an active AfD trumps the RM process.

  I don’t think there is any need to ascribe motive to the draft mainspacer, whether they did it for this reason or that, once the mainspace page is AfD-ed, short of speedy deletion, the AfD has to play out. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am not attributing motive to the draft mainspacer as such. Anyone has the right to mainspace a draft. I am attributing motive to anyone who moves an article back into draft space after it has been tagged for AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  I see a lot of agreement that a page with the AfD tag should not be moved. So add this statement to the AfD tag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• I certainly think AfDs should continue regardless of what enterprising participants do with the content. The point of my previous comment was that I think we should forbid NACs if the AfD is irregular because the content is moved. I'm open to us forbidding draftification once an AfD is started in addition. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Careful with the wording… Draftifying (or even re-draftification) is a perfectly legitimate result for an AFD… it just shouldn’t be used to bypass an AFD. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is my thinking in suggesting rules:

  • If the page is AfD tagged, do not move it.
  • Do not remove the AfD tag while the AfD is open.
  • Do not close the AfD if you are INVOLVED.
  • CSD#G7 may not be used during an AfD, instead !vote as author agreeing to deletion.
  • Draftify, instead of delete, is a perfectly acceptable outcome of an AfD, if that is the Consensus of the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I have started an RFC to add an instruction not to move the article to the instructions not to remove the template or blank the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Article_for_deletion#RFC:_Add_Instruction_Not_to_Move

(I can't unilaterally add a statement to the template, which is protected.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, probably the most recent example of an attempt to move an article to draft space to defeat an AFD can be seen at M Miraz Hossain. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Concurring with Robert McClenon: Someone nominates it for AFD at this point. Then the proponent moves it back to draft space. If this sounds like gaming the system, that is because I think it is gaming the system. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this or not. Happy to close and move it if it's not. TLDR version; the guidance for naming events is out of step from how we actually name those articles. Do we update the guidance, or fix the article names?

At WP:NCEVENTS we have guidance for how to name articles on how to name articles that typically involve significant loss of life. Mass shootings, military and political conflicts, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, transport or industrial accidents, that sort of thing. That guidance has a few conventions for how to name an article when there is a lack of a common name for it. When that is the case, it says that articles should be named using a When, Where, What convention. Examples given in the guidance are 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. However, if you take a look at Category:2022 mass shootings, as well as its subcategories, half of those articles (18 following NCE, 18 not, 36 total) are not following this pattern. If you look at Category:2021 mass shootings and subcategories, we see similar (19 following NCE, 25 not, 45 total). However I think for 2021 mass shootings, that may be expected as with approximately a year having passed, there has been time for a common name to develop.

My attention was drawn to this by two move discussions happening at Talk:2022 Laguna Woods shooting#Requested move 21 May 2022, and Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting#Requested move 19 May 2022. While I have made an opinion on the merits of both of those moves, having looked deeper I see that this particular issue goes beyond whatever local consensus is established at those two articles. At both move requests, a number of editors have stated that the naming convention for events like mass shootings, is to use Where and What only, excluding When, feeling that When as a disambiguator is only needed whenever there is more than one event at a given Where. If Where, What is indeed the convention, then do we need to update the text at WP:NCE to reflect this? Or is there perhaps instead some extrapolation of a local consensus to a wider set of articles? If so, do we need to rename a subset of articles in categories like 2022 mass shootings, where no common name exists to match the guidance? Or is neither of these appropriate, and perhaps instead we should soften the language at NCE to something like In the majority of cases, it is recommended that the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors:?

Oh and because it may come up, I don't want this to be read as WP:FORUMSHOPPING the name of those two articles. Instead I want to focus on the broader issue of inconsistency between the guidance on naming this set of articles, and the practice of how we're actually naming those articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think in general, Year, Place, Event is descriptive and helpful to readers. Looking at the examples at WP:NCE that do not follow the normal convention, 2 of the 4 have notes distinguishing the article from other similar events at the same location. --Enos733 (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, though my issue isn't with the examples at NCE, but the discontinuity between what the guidance says these types of articles should be named, and how we're actually naming these articles in practice.

Another example appeared around the time I posted this thread. Robb Elementary School shooting. Let me walk you briefly through the page name history there. The article was created at 20:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) with the name "2022 Uvalde shooting". Three minutes later, at 20:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC) it was moved to "Robb Elementary School shooting", with an edit summary of moved page 2022 Uvalde shooting to Robb Elementary School shooting: per other school shooting articles. It remained there for about forty minutes, before being moved again at 20:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) to "2022 Robb Elementary School shooting", with no edit summary. Before being moved one last time, at 20:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC) back to "Robb Elementary School shooting" with an edit summary of moved page 2022 Robb Elementary School shooting to Robb Elementary School shooting over redirect: only one such incident occurred here, date unnecessary. Emphasis in both of the quoted edit summaries is mine.

This brief move war is similar to the ones that took place at the Buffalo and Laguna Woods shooting pages. Not withstanding editors who are unfamiliar with WP:NCE, I would suggest that these edit wars have occurred because of the difference between what the guidance tells us these articles should be named, and what editors are actually naming these articles when the events occur. As such, either we have a not insubstantial number of incorrectly named articles, because they do not follow the convention as lain out at NCE, or we have a naming convention at NCE that is fundamentally out of step with how editors are actually naming this type of article. So how do we address this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's standard to not include the year when there's only one event of that type at that location. School attacks are usually named after the school.

A more common dispute & inconsistency is that most articles about mass shootings in the US include the victims' names, because most American editors of those articles want them included. However, mass-casualty incidents of other types &/or in other countries usually don't include victims' names because most editors of other nationalities don't want them included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Jim, you've been beating this drum repeatedly over the past couple of weeks, but the consensus just isn't with you on this one. In the discussions we've had, at 2022 Buffalo shooting and other venues, the general feeling (which I also share) has been that the year is mostly useful in identifying these things. In a few cases, such as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the event is so firmly etched on in the public memory that adding a year isn't necessary, but that's the exception rather than the rule. There was a time when I used to argue the opposite, that we should omit the year per WP:CONCISE, but I have been persuaded otherwise, and from a reader-centric point of view it's definitely very valuable to include it.

As an aside, I'm wondering if "Robb Elementary School shooting" is actually the best sort of name for that incident at all. The press seem to be mostly referring to it as simply the "Texas school shooting" or similar.[1][2] If I were God of the Wiki I'd probably name this article 2022 Texas school shooting, because at the end of the day it's WP:COMMONNAME that should be guiding our naming first and foremost, not adhering to some nebulous convention.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It might be best to wait a few weeks and look at news sources again to see how they routinely call it. In the short term a reasonably neutral name should be selected and I can see either of "2022 Uvalde school shooting" or "Robb Elementary School shooting" right now, but in 2-3 weeks we probably will have a better idea what the media will routinely call it and then it can be moved, as necessary. --Masem (t) 12:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "2022 Texas school shooting" is that there is almost certainly bound to be more than one school shooting in Texas in 2022. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

While I can sympathise with the point, at least one of those examples is counter to the guidance at NCE. How do we reconcile that with text that says In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors: When the incident happened. Where the incident happened. What happened? Emphasis from the page.

Also I'm not sure if 2-3 weeks is really anywhere near long enough when considered against WP:10YEARTEST. How long was it after the Sandy Hook shooting before Sandy Hook became the COMMONNAME for that event? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Another week, another shooting. This time 2022 Warren Clinic shooting. Article move history is similar to Robb Elementary School shooting. It was created at "Warren Clinic shooting". I moved it to "2022 Warren Clinic shooting" citing NCE. Another editor moved it back twenty minutes later to "Warren Clinic shooting".

Serious question, given how frequent these mass shooting are, what can we do to ensure consistent article naming in the immediate to mid-term aftermath of an event such as this? Do we need an RfC to establish whether or not the guidance at NCE should be followed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this brings up another good point: I think it is impossible to know (at least in the USA, sadly) if this will be the only shooting at a location. While there have not been multiple mass shootings of note in the same location or city, that is only a yet.

I also agree with the fact that a common name cannot emerge directly after the shooting. Here's another point: with the frequency of the "smaller" mass shootings, will a common name ever emerge, or will they blend in with other shootings?

My point being this: my opinion is that for a year after the shooting, the naming convention for mass shootings should be Year, City, Type of Facility, shooting i.e 2022 Tulsa hospital shooting. Obviously, things can become clearer quicker than that, but we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Sheehanpg93 (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

If we're seriously considering renaming articles like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Virginia Tech shooting to 2012 Newtown shooting, 2007 Blacksburg shooting, and the like, then we're way out of line. Those are WP:COMMONNAMEs and that is that. Love of Corey (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

That is a false equivalence. Articles like Sandy Hook and the Virgina Tech shooting quite clearly have a COMMONNAME. The When, Where, What part of NCE explicitly does not apply to those. What is actually an issue however is articles like the aforementioned Robb Elementary School shooting, 2022 Warren Clinic shooting, 2022 Buffalo shooting, and 2022 Laguna Woods shooting being named or having RMs to be named in a way that is non-compliant with how the guidance states these articles should be named in a lack of COMMONNAME. That is where the When, Where, What naming convention should be used, according to WP:NCE.

Either our guidance is wrong, and needs updating. Or we have a number of articles that are named wrong, and need updating. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Robb Elementary School shooting is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME, though. Love of Corey (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Robb Elementary School shooting only returns about 19.1 million results. Uvalde school shooting however returns about 33.2 million results. Though given that we primarily use the WP:10YEARTEST assessing recentism issues, we shouldn't be trying to guess what the COMMONNAME is for at least a year. Until that point, I would argue we should roughly follow what our sources do while also following the When, Where, What pattern and call the article 2022 Uvalde school shooting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

And go against years of precedent with literally every U.S. school shooting article we've got? I don't think so. Love of Corey (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

If that is the case, then why is the guidance at NCEVENTS entirely at odds with this years of precedent? Why did the RM at the Buffalo article close with a no consensus to move finding if there is consensus against the When, Where, What pattern? Why too is the RM at the Laguna Woods article looking like it may close in the same way? And where was the consensus for that established? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

If so, it needs to be reformed to reflect what we've been doing. Love of Corey (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that it would require an RfC to change that text, what if the consensus is instead that the guidance is correct and it is the articles are named incorrectly? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The article titles are good just the way they are. Love of Corey (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearly there is some significant disagreement over that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearly. Love of Corey (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I will point out that (sadly) there were two shootings at/near Virginia Tech a year apart - the 2007 shooting and a 2006 shooting ("2006 Virginia Tech shooting" redirects to William Morva). - Enos733 (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2: said the following at the current Warren Clinic shooting move request and I thought it was relevant to quote here:

Many editors routinely include the year in article titles because they see it in many & assume that it's routinely included. I didn't say that the month is never needed. In a significant minority of articles it's needed because there has been more than one of that event of that type in that place in that year, such as April 2022 Kabul mosque bombing & May 2022 Kabul mosque bombing. We don't include the month in the title unless it's necessary, nor should we the year. People who don't know an event took place aren't going to look it up, let alone the year it happened, so including the year in the title is of no use to anyone. Who could including the year in the title help? Links in articles, templates, categories etc. will work as well regardless of whether or not titles include years. Searches such as [year]/[place]/[type of venue]/[type of event]/[perpetrator] etc. will likewise show what they're looking for regardless. If you mention the Guildford pub bombings to people, they're either going to have heard of them or not. No-one is going to not know of them, but if you say the 1974 Guildford pub bombings, then they'll remember

Diff link to original comment

This I think cuts right to the heart of the issue in this discussion. According to Jim, many editors only include the title because they see it in other article titles and assume it is routine. However the text at WP:NCEVENTS actually says the reverse of this: If there is an established, common name for an event (such as the Great Depression, Cuban Missile Crisis or a "Bloody Sunday"), use that name. In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors: When the incident happened. Where the incident happened. What happened. Why is this relevant? I was recently reminded that back in 2020, there was an RfC on the naming conventions at WP:KILLINGS because of a very similar situation involving 35 article move requests over the course of that year, which had resulted in inconsistent article names for that type of article.

We are now six months into 2022, and as of the time of writing in the category Category:2022 mass shootings in the United States are fifteen articles and redirects. Of the fifteen, six use the When, Where, What convention from WP:NCE, and nine do not. Two articles, 2022 Laguna Woods shooting and Warren Clinic shooting have current move requests open. The request at 2022 Laguna Woods shooting is to remove the year and rename the article to Laguna Woods church shooting. The request at Warren Clinic shooting is to add the year and rename the article to 2022 Tulsa hospital shooting because Warren Clinic is only meaningful to Tulsa locals. So like the 2020 situation involving WP:KILLINGS, we have had a number of article creations and move requests that have resulted in inconsistent article names within this topic area. This goes against the policy point WP:CONSIST, which is one of five characteristics that underlay all article naming conventions.

On 2 June, I asked if we needed an RfC to resolve this issue. I now think, especially because there was a remarkably similar RfC in 2020 involving inconsistent article naming for WP:KILLINGS, that the answer is yes, we need an RfC. Is there any editors who would be willing to help draft an RfC to resolve this broader issue of inconsistent article names? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I just don't think we need to be this worked up on the consistent "year place event" naming; that should be the default, but should be recognized that some of this mass events, such as school shootings or events near major landmarks eg Manchester Arena bombing, are going to be named after the building or place more than likely from reliable sources. --Masem (t) 17:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If the title is clearly descriptive & unambiguous, it doesn't need the year. We rarely include all the five Ws in the title, and the rule of three is satisfied by Tulsa hospital shooting. Putting 2022 at the beginning pointlessly lengthens the title & doesn't help anyone. The year will never become part of the common name unless there's another fatal shooting at a Tulsa hospital. No-one will be baffled at that name, and need the year in the title to make them realise what it's about, such as: Oh, the 2022 Tulsa hospital shooting - I hadn't a clue what Tulsa hospital shooting could mean, but now it's preceded by the year I remember it well. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there an established policy on the style for referring to people heading academic units? Is the correct form Professor/Dr X, Director/Deputy Director/Chair {whatever term is used by the institution} of the Y Centre/Institute/Department? Mcljlm (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:JOBTITLE, it depends on context, but generally these will be lower case if we're not referring to the specific office name. --Masem (t) 17:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Does that mean "Professor X, Director of the Y Centre" is incorrect? Mcljlm (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

"Professor" and "Dr." are titles so should be capitalised just as "Ms." and "Mr." are capitalised, but the other examples you give are simply job positions, not titles, so shouldn't not be capitalised any more than we would capitalise "bus driver" or "gardener". These are simply the rules of English; nothing specific to Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are a few examples from UK and US universities where director is capitalised, indicating that in at least some cases it should be regarded as a title:

"Margaret Connolly is ... Director of the St Andrews Institute"^[1]

"Professor Hanna ... is currently Director of"^[2]

"Nigel Gilbert CBE ... is Director of the Centre for ... and Director of the University’s Institute of"^[3]

"Professor Catherine Clarke is Director of the Centre for"^[4]

"Jack P. Shonkoff is ... Director of the university-wide Center on"^[5]

"Robert Berkhofer ... is also currently Deputy Director of the Medieval Institute."^[6]

"Dennis Frenchman ... is Director of the Center^[7]

"Dr. Banks is Director of the Interdisciplinary Center"^[8]

"David C. Barker is ... Director of the Center"^[9] Mcljlm (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

That just shows that ignorant marketing people (who for some reason think that having capital letters makes the holder of the position look more important) have taken over much communication from universities that should know better. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The pages from which I've quoted Phil Bridger appear to be for general information rather than as press releases. Mcljlm (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You're talking about two different types of titles here. Honorifics (Dr., Professor) that go before a person's name are always capitalised, but also generally used sparingly in articles per MOS:HONORIFIC. But I think Mcljlm is right that it's much less clear what we should do about these types of job titles. MOS:JOBTITLES says to capitalise it if it's used as as specific, unmodified, formal title (Jane Smith is Professor of English at the University of Oxbridge) but not in running text (Jane Smith is a professor in the English department at the University of Oxbridge). That's usually followed with professorships but where the title is "director" or "chair" it seems much less consistent. I'd lean towards not capitalising (Jane Smith is the director of the Centre for English Studies at the University of Oxbridge) because I don't think it is a "formal title for a specific entity" in the same way that professorial titles are, but I'm no MOS expert... – Joe (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

aceshowbiz.com is blacklisted, yet:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Ace+Showbiz%22
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22AceShowbiz%22

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Is that a matter relevant to a page that is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Most of 0mtwb9gd5wx's posts to the village pumps are like this, one or two links or a bit of wikicode followed by less than 5 words of explanation if you're lucky. [3] [4] [5] [6]. These posts are nearly always followed by a load of people asking "what's the question?" "what are you proposing?"/"Why are you proposing this?" "Is this in the right place?" etc which never get any response [7] [8] [9] [10]. I'm not sure what they're asking here or why it's on the policy page and I don't think it's a good use of time putting the effort in to try to figure it out. If they're going to ask other people to spend their time helping them they could at the least spend the time to write a complete and coherent sentence that clearly explains what the problem/suggestion is. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a tagging dispute currently at DRN in which a {{notability}} tag was applied to an article after an AFD was closed as No Consensus. (I will not mediate any tagging dispute, because I think that the purpose of dispute resolution should be to improve the article, but that is not the point.) The editors appear to be "dug in" on both sides, with some saying that the No Consensus close meant that there are questions about the notability of the subject, and some saying that the No Consensus close meant that there was not a consensus to delete the article. I think that the issue is really a policy question, which is whether No Consensus at AFD is a reason for tagging the article. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No Consensus means that there was not a consensus to delete the article. Since the only real point of a notability tag is to stimulate an Afd, & there shouldn't be another right now, it should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree, the fact that that it was no-consensus clearly means there are doubts that it is notable (assuming that's why an article was at risk of deletion). So its ongoing inclusion makes sense until more sources are added. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. The purpose of tagging articles is to encourage people to fix potential issues. An AfD closing as 'no consensus' is clear evidence that a significant proportion of people think there are issues. The fix is to improve the article, not pretend there isn't a problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

How do you fix notability, which is supposed to be unrelated to the current state of the article, by editing the article? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I consider the tag to be an appeal for editors to demonstrate notability in the article sourcing, rather than a proclamation that the subject is not notable. If the latter was the case, there would be no reason for the tag since the tagger could instead just PROD or AfD it. JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Assuming there was a discussion prior to the AfD, querying notability, then that would have been the time to tag, not after gng was discussed in an AfD. The discussion can continue with a view to resolution without the tag. Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I always find a post-AfD notability tag pointy. AfD is where we debate notability. If you still think it's not notable, you can initiate a DRV or renominate it at some point. Otherwise, what, are we supposed to have articles tagged forever? (I supported deletion btw). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Continued presence of notability tag can be 3 things:

1. An impetus to get the article improved
2. A visible indicator that there is an unresolved question/dispute over wp:notability
3. A precursor to AFD.

After a no-consensus AFD, with #3 temporarily off the table, you still have #1 & #2. IMO a recent no-consensus AFD should not preclude notability tagging. On #1, while in the ethereal sense notability relates to the topic/title, in reality it can be improved by including more (suitable) sources. Adding such sources (or failure to be able to do so after an effort) is also a way to resolve #2. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Additional note: The language right at Template:Notability make clear that the tag can be removed if you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues and that The template must not be re-added. In other words, once someone feels notability has been addressed, the notability tag is done. The next step, if you don't think they've been addressed, is to AfD, request merge, etc. This is in line with my understanding of what this tag is for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Those template notes sound like good guidance for most situations but probably not for when there is a dispute. Because basically says that if one person says it's not needed and takes it off, it can't be put back. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it says, and that's the way it should be. We shouldn't be having disputes over notability tags, and it's built into the documentation of the tag. The dispute is over notability, and one side of that dispute has a way to escalate: merge, afd, etc. Insisting on tagging because you didn't get your way isn't ok. Like it or not "no consensus" defaults to keep; if you still don't think it's notable, you can renominate, go to DRV, or find something else to do (like improving the article, removing low quality sources, removing unsourced/promotional content, stubifying if necessary, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Many good & valid points there but I still stick with my view on categorical exclusion of the tag as outlined above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• I advocate for even more use of {{Notability}} for articles that are still sitting in the WP:NPP queue. But I think that as soon as an article is nominated for deletion, the tag becomes pointless. I usually remove this tag as soon as an article gets nominated for deletion. I don't wait for the AfD result. Post-AfD, if the close was no consensus, {{More citations needed}} may be more appropriate, notability discussion can continue in the talk page, or a second AfD nomination can be done. MarioGom (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  "More citations needed" would not be more appropriate. The purpose of this tag is described as the following: This template indicates that the article needs additional inline citations. This is not the issue with the article - the article does not make statements that require additional inline citations. The disputed article discusses a subject which may not be notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Those are two different issues. BeŻet (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• The template should not be restored once it is removed. As Rhododendrites points out, improvement of the article is never an option, as notability is not affected by referencing or the state of the article. The template must not be re-added. Doing so is disruptive and a block should be considered. Our means of resolving notability issues is AfD, and that should be considered final. The use of this tag to obstruct an article is deplored. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  I have a proposal for change here: replacing the link to Help:Maintenance template removal with Template:Notability#Removing this tag Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  That doesn't seem necessary, as the help page already has a section about notability tags. The issue is, the help page straight up mischaracterizes the template. The template doesn't say, and doesn't require, adding citations to reliable sources (because notability doesn't require adding citations). All you have to do is read Wikipedia:Notability and Template:Notability to see that perspective doesn't follow from anything else. The template is an expression of doubt that such sources exist. To overcome it, you have to feel sufficiently confident they exist. Ideally, yes, you add them to the article, but we have other templates for insufficient citations ({{Refimprove}}, etc.). If you think the current citations are sufficient, you can just remove the tag. In a typical situation, though, you need to be careful when you do that, because the person who doesn't think it's notable can't restore the tags and has no other option but to escalate. We have a formal process for that. (Of course that's a typical case rather than someone making a point by adding it after an AfD was closed instead of following standard procedure for contesting a close or renominating). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• I closed the DRN case about the tagging dispute that prompted this inquiry. I was probably too polite in closing the dispute, and not sufficiently sarcastic, because I am in general disgusted by tagging disputes. Thank you for your comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• If an article is sent to AFD on notability grounds and survives the discussion, it should not continue to be tagged for notability. The AFD settles the notability issue. It makes no difference that the close was no consensus. A no consensus defaults to keep and means a substantial number of participants agreed it was, in fact, notable and presented rationales for that acceptable to the closer (if the keep rationales were not acceptable the close cannot possibly be no consensus). Those who disagree don't get to put a permanent "badge of shame" on the article. If you think the closer was in error then DRV is the correct route. If you think the participants were in error, then a subsequent renomination is possible. SpinningSpark 14:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  SpinningSpark's summary makes sense but is dependent on "a substantial number of participants", which seems a long way from where AfD is these days, with substantial numbers of cases rattling around for multiple relists with little to no participation. AllyD (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  But another common reason for NC is the assertions that sources must exist for one reason or another but that they would be hard to find. This doesn't actually establish notability, it establishes a presumption of notability that can still be rebutted if it's actually determined those sources do not exist. A no-consensus close can also happen despite weak keep arguments if a large enough numerical majority develops. Finally, guidelines on notability can change, e.g. WP:NSPORTS2022, which should absolutely permit tagging of articles that no longer meet presumption of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• I largely agree with Spinning Spark. The badge of shame isn't helpful in general. If it's survived AfD, it's probably not among our most pressing articles wrt notability. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There is continual problems and confusion over the use of WP:NCHESS at Afd and in the used for justification for reams of badly sources chess bios. As far as a I know it is not policy, except it seems to be continually used as though it is policy, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Bagrationi (chess). scope_creep^Talk 19:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• It doesn't supersede WP:GNG, which it clearly states, so it's a benchmark for likely notability. Though I see that discussion has devolved into arguing its compatibility to NSPORT, which is a contentious SNG that divides the community. Meeting WP:GNG should always be the goal because outside narrow exceptions GNG must be eventually met. NPROF with looser/different standards and NCORP with stricter standards would be examples of actually deviating from GNG.Slywriter (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
• The key to understanding how our various Subject Notability Guidelines (SNGs) and our General Notability Guideline (GNG) work in tandem is to understand the word “presumed”… it means that if the article topic meets the SNG criteria, it is highly likely that there will be reliable sources to also pass GNG.

  However, this is not guaranteed. It means we give the article a “benefit of the doubt” at AFD… we hesitate, and conduct a thorough search for those presumed sources BEFORE deleting (and ideally before nominating). It does NOT mean we can not delete if it turns out those sources don’t actually exist. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well, NCHESS isn't even an SNG, so this is ultimately irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Though even giving it the credit of a half step below a SNG (for ease of discussion), the key statement from Blueboar is "benefit of doubt". Reading the AfD that benefit of doubt has been questioned and sourcing should be provided as part of a valid keep rationale.Slywriter (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  As discussed elsewhere, even WP:N isn't a policy. It is a guideline, and WP:GNG is the most commonly used and probably most useful guideline to help us determine what is encyclopedically worthy of attention. It and several WP:SNG's have broad community support and longstanding consensus. In the case of WP:NCHESS, it has not achieved broad community consensus. Probably because it is a niche topic. However, this has been developed by subject matter experts, as to which topics are likely worthy of attention for a specialized encyclopedia, so if the topic meets one of the criteria it seems reasonable to give that some weight. That said, NCHESS subjects itself to GNG, so if for instance the topic fails WP:V or WP:NOTDICTIONARY, it would seem reasonable that these issues would supersede any criteria of NCHESS. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with everything else you said, but I think it's important to note that a big reason we don't just take a project's assessment of notability PPV as the final word is because oftentimes, particularly in niche topics where most articles will be biographies, the project develops lower and lower standards for both acceptable predictive accuracy and what counts as GNG in general. See, for example, all the sports projects whose notability guidelines were pared down or deleted after the WP:NSPORTS2022 consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• It's not a guideline, but it's also not a huge reach. The most inclusive of the components is the claim that GMs are notable. Fewer than 2000 GM titles have ever been issued, and it's one of the most played games in the world. The big problems for sourcing are (a) the GMs who haven't been particularly active in the last 15 years of internet coverage, and (b) most GMs do not live in English-speaking countries (and many of those other countries don't use a Latin script, making searching difficult). This all makes WP:BEFORE challenging. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• No it's not a wikipedia policy, it was developed by consensus of participants of WP:CHESS. Still I'm concerned about the recent deletionism trend towards chess players. Alexander Bagrationi is a Grandmaster with several sources to back him up. (Haven't worked out how his name is written in Hebrew yet). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  @MaxBrowne2 I did search his name in Hebrew (based on how it appeared on one Hebrew site mentioning him), but that returned exclusively mirrors of the original site and a few things on a member of the Bagrationi dynasty. The search in Cyrillic was similarly unfruitful, yielding just the unreliable SPS mentioned in the AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• WP:CHESS is not the only WikiProject to have its own internal notability guide, and it does state that it is subservient to the GNG. It's not a policy or guideline but it doesn't claim to be.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• TLDR it is an WP:ESSAY. WP:SNGs must have project-wide consensus and are never hosted on a WikiProject. This is just some guidance on the Chess project. As an essay, it really means nothing policy-wise, and is subservient to WP:GNG and other relevant policy or guideline criterium. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• That seems to be pretty clear. I'm was worried about the fantastic number of chess grandmasters that are being created and referenced to Chessgames database statistics and Chess.com blogs. I think now, I see there is only 2000 of them, so potentially they are all notable, then. I must assume that they will be updated to proper book references at some point in the future, as they GMs, there must be real coverage somewhere. Thanks for the comments. Its opened my mind somewhat to new possibilities and less of a targeting of chess articles and GM article at article review. scope_creep^Talk 10:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Anyone meeting WP:NCHESS#1 or #2 will certainly be notable: it's just a matter of getting ahold of the sources, which may be in any language and not available on the internet. — Bilorv (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  I searched for Alexander/Aaron Bagrationi in English, cyrillic, and Hebrew and found almost nothing (but did discover he wiki has a very well-developed article on the Bagrationi dynasty). The number of GMs is also skyrocketing, to the point that many (including Bagrationi) have too low an Elo to even enter some elite tournaments. That suggests the designation is not as selective as it once was and that coverage of chess is not so widespread as to justify presumption of notability for each GM. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  There are always going to be GMs that aren't as good as other GMs, and elite tournaments with strict requirements. Some tournaments wind up being largely for the top 20 people in the world, so I wouldn't say not being able to enter some tournaments is an issue. Rating and tournament success also isn't everything. GMs are more likely to get book deals, more likely to be invited to give lectures, more likely to be invited commentators now that such a thing exists...
  Pre-1980s, when FIDE tweaked the rules a bit, the title did mean more and there were fewer, but it's still pretty elite. There is an unofficial title of "super GM" which, I think, generally refers to people >2700 FIDE. They're going to wind up being more notable because they attain some kind of celebrity. There's plenty of funny business, too. There's a lot of money involved even for those who pursue it on the up-and-up due to the cost of tournaments, coaches, and travel, and lots of stories about tournament directors taking payoffs, tournaments held just to get someone a GM norm (there are legitimate ways to do this, but also not-so-legitimate ways), etc. When there's some sort of national pride on the line, you might imagine government pressure to have the most GMs, have the strongest GMs, have the highest ratings, etc. Relevant. But there's funny business and better/worse players at the top level of basically any sport/game, so I'd be wary of making generalizations. It may be worth some research. Could start with GMs from the English-speaking world to start out, to get a clearer sense of how much coverage GMs get? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#Clarify_the_right_can_be_refused to clarify the process for granting INTADMIN rights. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The old essay WP:Precedents was extended in Dec. 2021 with a somewhat malformed section that really ought to get fixed and ought to have a few more eyes on what it says. See Wikipedia talk:Precedents if you care. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Should we embed video lectures in articles and if so, under what conditions? Examples are at Propaganda and 24 other articles found by searching one editor's edit summaries; there may be more.

I believe these are all lectures by academics at Dutch universities, published on the "Universiteit van Nederland" YouTube channel with a CC licence, uploaded to Commons and inserted into articles as Commons files. They're for a general audience; the one at Propaganda begins "Are you scared to be brainwashed? Well, the good news is...."
My first thought was that WP:EL principles apply, in that the lectures don't present anything that couldn't be covered in the body of the article, but of course these are now Commons files not external links. Several other issues – editability; managing WP:V; accessibility; selection; appropriateness of the format for Wikipedia – were summarised at the Helpdesk when I asked if we have a direct policy. I'd add WP:NPOV and WP:DUE issues and the risk of closing off collaborative editing. There's an essay Wikipedia is not YouTube, but as the editor PJ Geest points out, that is not a guideline or policy.
Do we need a guideline or can editors here clarify how existing policy and guidelines apply? NebY (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I added a starttime to the video about propaganda, so this intro line is now skipped. This line is not representative for the good quality of these videos. --PJ Geest (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There is also another example of similar videos by academics on the article of Cultured meat, which I did not add. One of them is added by User:Hannolans in 2016 and the other one by User:Prototyperspective in 2021, so these videos are there also since a long time and have consensus it appears to me. --PJ Geest (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the videos of this source (University of the Netherlands) should be judged on an individual basis. This is also the policy on the Dutch Wikipedia, where we have a lot of experience with videos of this source (almost 400 of this source are used on the Dutch wiki). Only a limited of them are available in English.--PJ Geest (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The article on cultured meat actually...does a pretty good job of illustrating some of the concerns with prominently adding these sorts of long-form 'explainer' videos to Wikipedia.

First, it's something of a dirty secret of Wikipedia that just about anyone (especially anyone logged in with a non-redlinked username and user talk) can add just about anything to an article; as long as it's not obvious vandalism or gibberish, it will tend to 'stick'. Most articles just aren't terribly closely watched, and a lot of Wikipedia content-building is more accretion than editing. The fact that something has been present in an article for a long time is very, very thin evidence to support its inclusion; it should not be mistaken for consensus. Consensus is what evolves after the inclusion of content is challenged.

Second, the two videos in that article are from 2015 and 2017. The very earliest proof-of-concept demonstrations of cultured meat date to 2013, while the first pilot-scale manufacturing didn't take place until 2020. Even if those videos were absolutely correct and up-to-date when they were published, they've missed the majority of the time that lab-grown meat has been a thing. The most recent video was published more than three years before the first cultured "chicken" was served to consumers, in December of 2020.

Third, we consequently have more than 23 minutes of outdated video slapped down right at the top of a Wikipedia article, in a format that cannot plausibly be updated, corrected, or easily modified (save, perhaps, for truncation) by regular Wikipedia editors--and which almost certainly will not be updated or amended by their original creators. We realistically cannot [edit: missed word] adjust the content, emphasis, tone, or style of this material. There is no reason for this content to sit in the lead section of the article, ahead of nearly all of the other accessible, editable, up-to-date content contributed by Wikipedia editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a lecture by Mark Post, he was the first in the world to present a proof of concept for cultured meat. Seems relevant to me in a encyclopedia. About video editing, that is of course possible and you could also simply add a start and stop time in the template to show only a relevant fragment. --Hannolans (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that I'm not suggesting that the video should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons, or that it might not be appropriately linked from Wikipedia down in the external links section of the article (for example--keep in mind we have tools like the {{commons}} template for a reason). But a single twenty-minute primary source lecture from the infancy of the field - even by an expert - shouldn't be sitting up at the top of the article, ahead of all the rest of its content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Not everything any given scientist says, however significant they are in the their field, is of current encyclopedic value. Simply being first to present a proof of concept doesn't mean your lecture from years ago is now the best; at whatever level it's pitched, and there is a very significant chance that as the field has moved beyond proof of concept, it has gone through significant changes.

Editing start and stop times lacks transparency. If I change article text, other editors can see exactly what I've done. Likewise with changing references or images. But who knows what words I've removed or added if I edit "start=10.5|end=671" NebY (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

IMO it's the same as a paper written by someone. Should be evaluated as to whether is an OK sources to use. If so, you can use it as a source for content but it is not content. Nor do you embed an external link into the body of an article.North8000 (talk)`

Video in general exists in a pretty fuzzy space on Wikipedia. A few issues below (bear with me through the bulletpoint setup).

• Even before we get to an article:
  • It's harder to produce a high-quality video than a high-quality photo (generally),
  • there are far fewer freely licensed video than images
  • Commons makes it really hard to upload video if you do find it
• Images already have an odd relationship with the rest of our policies already, with a photo able to say e.g. "this is X species" or "this X building in Y city on Z date" without the need for a citation. Taking that awkward relationship and stretching it out to audio and video makes it even more complicated.
• Our guidelines for video are really poorly developed, and the problems just don't get that much attention.
• Including a video is a binary decision (include or exclude), whereas most of the rest of Wikipedia can be edited.
• While some videos are uncontroversial, such as an illustration of a chemical reaction or a bird singing, and some videos are highly controversial, such as an explainer video that acts as a substitute for the article, there's a ton of gray area and it's hard to draw clear lines.
• So what do we do?
  • Make uploading video easier. This is already something the WMF is going to look into, I think, as part of a bunch of work on Commons they're planning in the near future.
  • Build the Visual Editor equivalent of a video editor, hosted locally, which can make minor changes to existing videos.
  • Hold one or a series of RfCs to actually build out our guidelines on video (fun fact: we don't even have a guideline for video! The best we have is an essay, Wikipedia:Videos, which needs improvement and stronger consensus behind it).
  • Right now, videos are going to have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and anyone adding videos should understand that there's a non-trivial amount of skepticism about videos that could stand in for an article (by explaining/describing a subject) rather than illustrating an article or otherwise supplementing the text. The amount of gray area here means there will likely be times when it's deemed appropriate, and other times when it's not. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Rhodo, and in fact discussed this very topic with a WMF staffer a week or so ago. Hopefully, my suggestions will bear fruit. Atsme 💬 📧 00:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Content-wise, it is not clear why embedding video (or audio) would be different from embedding a photo or embedding text, as in a block quote from a book or from published conference proceedings or anywhere else. The same guidelines and policies should apply, including topicality, notability, brevity etc. Technically, there are distinct issues with embedding media such as video, but unless I am mistaken, these are not the main concern of the OP. 65.254.10.26 (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about technical issues, true, probably because I don't know enough about them. Would you like to expand on that? NebY (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Storage maybe one concern, depending on the embedding mechanism. The allowable sizes of the embedding window may need to be discussed, which impacts optimal/allowable video resolution. There are also videofile format issues, and related to that, browser compatibility. Finally there are accessibility concerns. Even though these are normally a content issue, embedding video may also involve adding a transcript for screen readers or a separate narration track if one exists, etc. All of which may have a technical component. 98.7.221.81 (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not support including content I cannot just glance at to assess its claims and that cannot be searched or scanned by edit filters. JoelleJay (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

To expand: if someone adds or replaces an image you can just look at it to see whether it raises any obvious red flags. With video, even if it's clearly an appropriate topic patrolling editors must actually watch the whole thing to make sure it doesn't violate any PAGs. Someone could "update" a 7 minutes 50 second video with one that has otherwise identical specs but inserts some propaganda or gore or whatever between 7:29 and 7:30, and it would be much harder for anyone to find out than just linking to a shady website. JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for interposing. The concerns are valid, but I don't know if they are sufficient in denying embedded video content. The meaning of a (text) block quote can change by surgically altering just one word, or by replacing punctuation, and edit filters would be none the wiser. It is also unlikely that editing embedded video would escape notice, unless one has full access to the source, in which case these concerns apply to any content, not just video. And I think any such editing would be obvious in the case of Commons media. It is true that patrolling editors should watch the entire thing. That is just the nature of the beast. The other option is restricting rich media, which may have semantic as well as presentation repercussions. 98.7.221.81 (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

But it is much, much easier for editors to actually check text for changes than it is to scroll through an entire video. And people wouldn't have to edit the embedded video itself, they would just need to upload a seemingly-identical one to commons and then replace the existing video. How many page watchers would even notice a file identifier had changed if it was disguised with other minor edits? JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It's also possible to overwrite a file so that the filename doesn't change and the improved versions used wherever the old one was. I see better quality uploads, maps with clearer colouring, improved cropping etc - sometimes edit wars.. NebY (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

About the cultured meat video: there exists also a more recent video by the same scientist from 2020: c:File:Would_you_eat_lab-grown_meat.webm, so if you change the video it is not outdated anymore. --PJ Geest (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a talk titled "Would you eat lab-grown meat", which begins and ends with University of the Netherlands branding. I haven't watched it all; I dipped in and heard (of meat) "It's a culture. It's power, fire, masculinity, death, supremacy over another species, all these kind of connotations."(at 9:38+) Closing words include "So my vision for the future and hopefully for those 20 years is actually a very very rmantic and a really really conservative one." Placng this talk as a part of a Wikipedia article would breach WP:NPOV, yet you say that "on the Dutch Wikipedia, where we have a lot of experience with videos of this source (almost 400 of this source are used on the Dutch wiki)" Does Dutch Wikipedia have a different WP:NPOV policy and how can you say that almost 400 from this source are used, as opposed to being available as Commons files? NebY (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I see you have notified two editors of this discussion as "I noted you contributed to University of the Netherlands videos on Commons." [11][12]. To ensure you do not breach our rules on canvassing by being too selective, please would you also notify editors who have engaged with you on your own or article talk pages concerning such videos and editors who have reverted your additions of them to articles. NebY (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

PJ Geest, that's still highlighting a problem with prominently-placing long-form video content at the top of our articles. NebY has identified some pretty conspicuous issues with the video's tone and neutrality. It really illustrates the issue that I mentioned to you on the Help Desk--just because someone is a scientist, professor, or other subject matter expert, it doens't mean that we should automatically presume that anything they publish will be neutral, or that their individual viewpoint deserves a lot of WP:WEIGHT. Mark Post is certainly an expert in the field, but he's also someone who has significant vested interests. His academic and industrial careers are built on this particular technology (he's the co-founder of Mosa Meat). It's questionable whether we should be using Wikipedia to amplify Post's point-of-view at all, let alone whether we should prominently place it above Wikipedia's own. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

These videos are inappropriate in the lead section and at a minimum moved into the body. They are too long, too subjective, too "branded". It's a distraction. Really it belongs in the external links section and/or cited. -- GreenC 04:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Another option is reduce the videos to 2 minutes of essence so as not to send readers off somewhere for 25 minutes right at that lead. Video is a powerful attention grabber. These videos in the lead are drawing readers away from the article. It's not like a hyperlink, video is different, it is pesticide of human attention. Helpful in small doses but deadly in larger. -- GreenC 04:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Something makes me thing we already had a long RfC on "should articles contain long videos" - with a major concern being that they can't be easily edited. Anyone got a link? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Are you thinking Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC? There's also WP:NOTYOUTUBE. —Cryptic 14:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Cryptic thanks, it was that Osmosis one - seems like this is basically the same issue. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

    Some of the example articles seem in MEDRS scope too - Allergy and Anorexia Nervosa, maybe also Antibiotic#History (File:Why won’t antibiotics cure us anymore.webm); Noise-induced hearing loss (File:How are hair dryers and headphones killing your ears.webm); maybe even Environmental health#Concerns (File:How is our sick planet making us sick.webm) NebY (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  • There was also this RfC about full-length films in articles, which may be tangential because it's kind of specific. Wow, that was six years ago -- doesn't feel like it. A pervasive issue with that RfC was that the major examples (the articles where the disputes arose from) were pornographic, which clearly colored some opinions of use of full-length films in general. Regardless, it's a very specific "long-form video" application. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

    That one is a bit different, those are articles about a film, that is public domain, and the entire file was embedded. There would be no need to "edit" it etc, as it was the factual subject. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  • There have also been several discussions of Wikipedia:simpleshow, like this RfC at the abortion article. There are many flavors of explainer video, clearly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• I suspect the path of least resistance right now, other than to say broadly "case-by-case", would be to link to explainer videos on Commons via the external links section by default, including a disclaimer about potential issues with explainer videos. Of course, we may get (or already have) many videos on a single topic, and consensus should determine which, if any, to include. I'm picturing something like "Wikimedia Commons has explainer videos available for this topic. Click here for more information about explainer videos on Wikipedia" followed by links on the next line. The latter part would link to a section of Wikipedia:Videos that explains e.g. these are not intended as substitutes for the article, may be out of date, and may contain opinions or other content which do not meet Wikipedia's standards for encyclopedic content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  That's such a straightforward and undemanding approach, unlike a grim case-by-case process, and saves us from getting bogged down arguing whether WP:EL can be circumvented by copying from YouTube to Commons. NebY (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• As the primary author of WP:NOTYOUTUBE, of course I think that essay is worth reading and relevant. Perhaps the key thing is that Wikipedia is collaboratively edited by volunteers and these videos just are not and cannot be (crude truncation aside). While some are approximately relevant to the article they are effectively articles in video form and as such quite a different beast to deciding to include a photo or an illustration. They contain information our readers would expect us to have fact checked, cited and corrected if they were in the body text, but we can't do any of that. We've ended up embedding them because they have a free licence, but if they weren't free, would we have an external link to them? Maybe for some. If their content passes WP:EL then link, but please don't embed. -- Colin°^Talk 17:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Colin, WP:NOTYOUTUBE really helped me think about this before coming here, so thank you! I'd quibble a little with "We've ended up embedding them because they have a free licence", in that PJ Geest framed it more as a deliberate direction of travel: "extra argument for keeping the videos is that commercial websites like YouTube become more and more attractive and users increasingly expect answers to their search queries in rich content (e.g., image, video, and audio formats), see following post What does the world need from us now? External Trends to Watch. So Wikipedia cannot stay behind, it should stay attractive.".[13] NebY (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  • NebY, if you look at the Wikimedia page it also says people are increasingly searching by voice, and expecting their smart device to read out the answer. My device frequently answers questions with "According to Wikipedia...." So video is hopeless for that since the content is not searchable by the smart engine nor can it be read out. Remember that Wikimedia are interested in all educational free content, not just Wikipedia. I would love Wikipedia to have more images and short videos but if it doesn't remain a site created and edited by anyone, then it no longer is Wikipedia. This is externally produced lecture content, not encyclopaedia articles with links and citations. It really isn't Wikipedia, hence the essay name. I think some people think Wikipedia is an educational information website, and that's not what Wikipedia is at all. It is a collaboratively edited free content hyperlinked encyclopaedia. -- Colin°^Talk 14:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

    • Colin I do agree with you! I only wanted to say that some haven't so much drifted into this because the videos happen to be available; they see embedding videos as the way to go for en.wiki, so upload a file like File:How can I eat my way to a better world.webm ("your choices as a consumer matter, but not just the choice of which product you buy but also the place you buy it and even the bank that facilitates the transaction" from YouTube to Commons, then embed it at the top of Sustainable seafood. That's using Wikipedia's technical capabilities to do something that's not within Wikipedia's purpose and is inimical to collaborative editing, as well as using Wikipedia as a platform. NebY (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with everyone else above about the problems with these videos (can't be edited, can't inline cite, can't be updated, undue/promo, etc). Embedding videos like this shouldn't be done. Not even sure if they're good for ELs, maybe on a case by case. Levivich 18:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I have used videos in articles to demonstrate movement in animals, and certain behaviors, etc. Imagine having a quote on video by a highly notable person that is now deceased vs the archaic flatness of text. Written descriptions fall short of actually seeing it on video. I think perhaps a size limit is doable, but concern over noncompliance with NPOV is a bit of a ^[stretch]. We include biased quotations cited to RS that are biased, but whether or not it's presented in a dispassionate tone is debatable. Then again, if the article is referring to a passionate delivery, we can actually see it in a video. Sorry, but I don't find any of the oppose arguments convincing. Videos can be removed or replaced, and other videos can be added for counter balance. I think it's time WP caught up to the technology that has taken the internet by storm. Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme I think there is a big difference between something like Atsme said, "I have used videos..." being a video of you saying that as compared to a video of you giving a speech about videos. In the former, besides being short it is just evidence of the thing being reported - in the later it is presentation of your original research. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@xaosflux oh my – have I misinterpreted this entire discussion? I thought it was about uploading & using video lectures by notable experts/academics/professionals for use in relative articles, but that would not include a COI video such as a WP editor lecturing about a company or university they work for that is the subject of the article. The latter would surely be a no-no. OTH, if it is a BLP about that editor, and there are uninvolved editors overseeing that BLP, such a video would be appropriate. My apologies if I have completely misconstrued what is being proposed. Feel free to strike my comments but please add my favorite emoji at the end to indicate my state of mind. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Atsme 💬 📧 15:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme I think it is somewhere between - these are long-form lectures from someone talking about the subject. I'm not sure if it is limited to also judging how much that specific presenation is considered reliable or not. Seems like these aren't quite being used as a "reference" but as "content" - but it isn't content that is demonstrative of what our editors said. If there was an article about "Topic" or "Person" and there was a clip of a notable researcher of that topic saying something that was cited by editors or video proof/demonstration of something I don't think there is much worry on those.

I see the main point of contention here trying to decide if very high prominence in articles should be given to an editor choosing to include a Here is a video presentation by purported expert on this topic talking about it or not. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I think videos like you describe are totally appropriate. A short clip of the subject of the article (whether a person, animal, mechanism, natural phenomenon, etc.) is the perfect use for embedded video. A third party, whether an "expert" in the field or a Wikipedian, basically doing a video version of the article is much more appropriate as an external link than an embedded item. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been participating in AfDs more, and have seen things that I feel need to be addressed. Three AfDs have spurred me to propose new reforms to this community process:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Ovsyannikova - I !voted to delete and redirect the article in question. If you read the AfD, you will see that there are many "keep" !votes, many of them using arguments we should avoid using in deletion discussions, mainly based on personal point of view. Those !votes all came from IPs and accounts whose only purpose was to "save" the subjects article. Ultimately, the article was kept, even though it wasn't because of the SPAs. As someone who rarely gets over the past, I felt that things had to change in AfDs.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let me solo her1 - While patrolling recent changes, I came across this article again, which had been nominated for deletion by a new user. I commented on the AfD because I got suspicious of the fact that newly registered users were able to find a Wikipedia process that I feel can only be found by new accounts when they are pointed to them. Haleth wrote an amazing "keep" opinion, mentioned that they share my concerns about the nominator potentially being a single-purpose account, and said,

  PS: On a side note, why do we even allow random editors below autoconfirmed or extended confirmed status the capability to conduct drive-by AfD nominations, especially when this is a topic area is notorious for rampant bad faith actions from block evading sockpuppets?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Asher - I did not participate in this one, but it reinforces why I think the AfD process should be reformed. In fact, Deepfriedokra protected the page due to the problems I have addressed.

I am thankful that us experienced Wikipedians know about the policies and guidelines, and resist ineffective outside pressure. As ScottishFinnishRadish said when an IP confronted him about his nomination of Victoria Asher for deletion,

melecie covered the rest pretty well. My actions have nothing to do with Asher, and everything to do with how we ascertain notability on Wikipedia.

Now, for my actual reforms:

• !votes that are based on certain arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, such as arguments without arguments and personal point of view, can and should be "thrown out" (removed), which should be followed with a message to the !voter explaining why. We should make a warning template for that purpose.

• !votes from identified single-purpose accounts/IPs should be removed because they will never affect consensus and constitute disruptive editing (this is the reason DFO gave to protect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Asher). I know that there are some AfDs that have gotten public attention, so people come to the discussion and push their POVs, a form of advocacy. I also think this constitutes meatpuppetry because it involves recruiting people for disruptive purposes. Meatpuppetry is not allowed because it is a form of sockpuppetry. To prevent bad-faith editors from trying to alter consensus, all AfDs should be pending changes protected (preferably by a bot), allowing IPs and newly registered users to participate while their !vote is reviewed. A pending changes reviewer will be able to take a look at the user's activities on WP and decide if the !vote should be accepted or "rejected".

Let me know if you have other ideas dedicated to stopping bad faith editing on Articles for Deletion. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 22:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I have not participated at AfD in a long time. Too contentious. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay. PackMecEng (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern .....simply not the place for content editors Moxy- 19:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the percentage of AfDs that have these issues is pretty small, and generally closers are more than willing to discount obvious meat and sock violations. It's also not too difficult to get protection if it's needed.

The only issue I had with how the Asher AfD went was that someone restored a number of obvious meat !votes I had removed after the page was semi'd. Even that didn't effect the outcome, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Graeme Bartlett, as I mentioned them. [14] and [15] are the removal and restoration. Since AfDs are not votes, but discussions on how policy applies, being unfamiliar enough that you don't know where to contribute seems like it should be disqualifying. There should be a fair amount of leeway for removing non-constructive obvious meat-puppet contributions from discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Votes should not be removed because they are poorly formatted or obviously due to canvassing. There is a danger that deleting comments is removing valid votes, and mainly because the remover disagrees. Someone who does not like the comments should instead add a comment about them. Later the closer should consider what they say. If their argument is valid, then it should be considered. And if out of policy then it can be ignored. We have two important things here: an encyclopedia that we are trying to build, and people who want something. The purpose is not to serve the bureaucracy. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victoria_Asher the page should not have been semi protected, as it resulted in votes going on the talk page, making it even more difficult for the closer, than if they had gone on the main page. And once someone put a vote in the wrong place, others followed the wrong example. Most of these votes are not bad faith and are not actually disruptive if they are voting to keep. Disruptive votes from actual socks or trouble makes are much more likely to be delete votes. You are right be be suspicious of delete nominations from a SPA. But they can be speedily kept if obviously bad faith. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Most of these votes are not bad faith and are not actually disruptive if they are voting to keep. Disruptive votes from actual socks or trouble makes are much more likely to be delete votes. You are right be be suspicious of delete nominations from a SPA.

?? I see way more SPA keep !votes trying to promote non-notable subjects than I see !votes for delete driven by off-wiki disputes. Most of those keeps are from COI/UPE/agenda-based accounts and are inherently disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: I hope you are having a good day and I apologize for not replying sooner. Why do you think that votes from people who came to an AfD with an agenda are good faith? Even though ignorance of the law may excuse when dealing with newcomers, bad faith is evident if they come with an agenda. I don't think that single-purpose editors will follow Wikipedia rules (this is why I do not like them). If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Ovsyannikova, there is a single-purpose account who !voted keep, HansClumsy. That account was blocked for making disruptive edits, such as removing the AfD tag of the article, assuming bad faith from other editors, and bothering an admin, Ponyo, over the matter. Their talk page contains proof that canvassed SPAs may have more bad-faith intentions than just attempting to alter the result of an AfD. This AfD had lots of people who came with the intent of having it kept, so it means that it must have been shared online. This makes HansClumsy and the other SPAs and IPs who came to the discussion guilty of a form of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry. However, I don't think blocking them for meatpuppetry would do much because it's not likely that they would come back after fulfilling their purpose. (pinging ScottishFinnishRadish as they pinged Graeme to the discussion) LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 13:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it more likely that the many editors who came to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Ovsyannikova saw her action in the main headlines of most Western news outlets, came to Wikipedia to see if there was any further information about her, and saw that her article was nominated for deletion? "It means that it must have been shared online" and the subsequent accusations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are themselves assumptions of bad faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

These kinds of proposals come up fairly frequently, but fail to find consensus for a change. That's not to say you can't try again, but you may want to dig through the various village pump and AfD archives to see where they went wrong. I agree that canvassing and meat puppetry are nontrivial problems for AfD. Ideally, closers don't give them much weight, but that's not actually consistent practice. Ultimately, even though it's a !vote, few closers are willing to close against the majority (and go through the inevitable challenges, allegations of supervoting, and DRVs). Only when abuse is egregious and obvious, or when comments are way off the mark, is it uncontroversial to discount them. But it's not clear what a better system would be. We could semi-protect AfDs (or even ECP) by default, but what about new users who bring lots of good sources to the debate -- ok to relegate them to the talk page? What about article creators who are not yet autoconfirmed or extended confirmed? How would we create an exception to them? Canvassing, meat puppetry, etc. can be really hard to prove, so it would also be hard to build rules around degree of certainty... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• It's really the job of the closer to disregard weak votes, but the closer should not be mandated to do certain things because it doesn't leave room for compelling arguments and other context specific things. If you feel the closer didn't do the right thing ask them about it, and if they don't give a reasonable reply, see WP:DRV. -- GreenC 00:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• There was just a similar issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coco Bandicoot. Half of the redirect votes were either just WP:PERNOM or WP:JUSTAVOTE. Then when I brought up new sourcing, most of those still in favor of a redirect didn't actually give a reason for their stance, while another editor voted keep based on that sourcing. Hence, I think this discussion should have at least been relisted. I don't think consensus was clear based on the new sourcing I provided. MoonJet (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Feel free to take any of these to WP:DELREV. That's what it's for. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Number 2 is a non-starter, IMO. When we say Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, we really mean it. If someone without an account comes across an article with an AfD banner at the top and follows the link to the discussion, they should be welcome to engage in that discussion (though if their arguments are not compatible with policy, they should be disregarded).
  Number 1 is a recipe for strife. It sounds reasonable on the surface, but the big question is who decides which arguments to strike as non-policy-based? And what happens when editors inevitably disagree about it? Are we going to have sub-discussions to form consensus about whether a particular comment should be struck? That sounds like a nightmarish fractal of infinite bureaucracy. As others have said, it's up to the closer to judge the strength and policy-compliance of each argument. Colin M (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Colin M: I understand your concerns. I think I should clarify what I said in my reforms (pinging Rhododendrites as they expressed a similar concern). I suggested that AfDs should be given pending changes protection in order to allow IPs and newly registered users to participate. After reading my statement again, I think it could be interpreted as shutting them out of the process.

  To answer the big question, experienced users, preferably people active in AfDs, should be able to decide which arguments are non-policy-based. However, some arguments that can be struck out are blatantly non compliant with policy. Anyone with some experience will be able to cross those out. For example, if a slew of newly registered users came to an AfD of a non-notable band in order to !vote "keep" with reasons along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT, anyone can strike out their votes because they obviously do not use any policies/guidelines and they could have found the AfD because they were told to (canvassing/meatpuppetry). I don't believe that any reasonable editor would disagree with restoring those kinds of !votes, but like you said, the closer will be the ultimate judge of deciding which !votes get counted.

  Thank you for participating in this discussion. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. I misinterpreted "!votes from identified single-purpose accounts/IPs should be removed" as (single-purpose accounts)/(IPs), rather than single-purpose (accounts/IPs). Still, I disagree with using PCP in this way for the same reason I disagree with reform #1. Colin M (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps the !votes of editors who support redirecting and deletion at the same time - which may not be technically possible and is certainly not compliant with policy - should be "thrown out" (removed), which should be followed with a message to the !voter explaining why. That seems reasonable. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's merge and delete that are incompatible without effort (see WP:MAD), not redirect and delete, but they should obviously be done in the reverse order. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  In what situation is "delete and redirect" more compliant with policy than "merge and redirect"? Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  When there's no mergeable content. This happens often when the existing content is riddled with copyright infringements, or isn't sourceable. Or the best target for the redirect is unrelated to the subject except for having a similar name. Reyk _YO! 22:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, COPYVIO was the one limit case where I already saw the potential benefit of a page delete before recreating the page as a redirect. And I suppose where the best redirect target isn't related to the content at AfD, that might also mandate a page delete in some cases.

  But where content "isn't sourceable" (the much more common scenario), what problem is there in retaining it in the page history? I get that "merge and redirect" doesn't apply where there is literally no content to merge, but that doesn't mandate a "delete" (which always means a page delete, no?). Newimpartial (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  My comment was simply to point out that deleting and redirecting does not violate any policy, if that is the outcome of a discussion. Deleting and merging does unless a lot of care is taken (per WP:MAD) to avoid a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  While "delete and redirect" may not necessarily violate policy, there ought to be a good reason for the page history to be deleted (such as COPYVIO, or COI editing, or if the page history concerns a different topic entirely). For the vast majority of AfDs that result in a redirect, the page history should be retained, and any DUE, permissible content should be merged to the redirect target per WP:PRESERVE. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think we agree about that issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• AFD as presently constituted does far more harm than good to the project (the presence of bad content being far less of a problem than the absence of good content; after all these years we still have amazingly little good content, and most of what we have grew slowly from bad content). AFD has been a source of massive toxicity for many years. It would be impossible to tally the damage it has caused or to number the editors it has driven away. I myself can only stand a few days in that atmosphere every few years. Unfortunately, a significant amount of that toxicity can be attributed to people using the WP:ATA essay/wishlist as if it were policy. Low-effort !votes and comments based on handwaving invocations of WP:ATA, or (to get to the nub of the problem) that place the onus on the article's creators/defenders rather than the nom, should be given no weight. (For that matter, IMO, deletion arguments not based on the purposes of the encyclopedia should be given very little weight, recognizing that the notability guidelines are merely a means to an end and applying them indiscriminately can do enormous damage.) In any event, this proposal would take things in exactly the wrong direction. -- Visviva (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Either a sock/meatpuppet vote is clear enough that someone should label it as such, and therefore will be obvious to the closer (it would usually be obvious even without the post) or it's not clear, in which case we risk removing viable !votes. Thus too, blatant ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT votes. Labelling is also better than deletion because it avoids the risk of GF errors, or at least helps get more eyes on doing such. I've never known an AfD get the wrong result by a clear issue with such, and this proposal is not designed for the less than clear examples. There are reasons non-AC users should participate in AfDs, but I grant that the use-cases for a non-AC user needing to nominate an article would also usually make it easy for them to find another editor to request it for them. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

One idea is wording at the AFD that urges and creates an expectation that arguments should be made based on the guidelines/policies involved in the nomination criteria. For example, if nominated based on notability that arguments be in terms of GNG and/or relevant SNG guideline. And maybe to go further to say that closes take into account only such arguments. North8000 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• If it were up to me, all XfD discussions would automatically be semi-protected. There is virtually nothing of use that IPs and newbies can offer in such discussions. I realize that some IPs are longstanding contributors, but this will encourage registration in order to better insure that the IPs we deal with are consistently the same editors. BD2412 T 18:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is absurd. Usually when an XfD is being brigaded/canvassed offsite, those doing so register accounts anyways in an effort to be taken more seriously. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Semi-protection extends to excluding registered accounts as long as they are less than four days old and have fewer than ten edits. Perhaps we need another intermediate level of protection for a somewhat longer period (figuring that a relisted AfD will run for about two weeks), and requiring somewhat more previous editing. BD2412 T 19:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  @BD2412 and Jéské Couriano: Thanks for participating in the discussion. I agree with BD's idea, though I also think that we should allow IPs and newly registered accounts to participate as well. This is why I suggested that pending changes protection be applied to AfDs. Note that I did not say XfDs because AfDs are about articles, so they serve the most interest to the public. Requiring previous experience will help weed out !voters who came for a reason unrelated to Wikipedia maintenance, but how difficult would that be to enforce? LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  CRASHlock actually is not an option here (and if it were I'd stop participating in AfDs altogether). The install used by en.wp limits it to mainspace specifically. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Jéské Couriano: This is not true. Notwithstanding policy considerations, PC may be applied to pages in Wikipedia space (and that includes AfDs), as evidenced by this list. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with BD2412 - excellent idea that will prove beneficial in getting more IPs to register. Atsme 💬 📧 13:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

A Few Comments

I started one of the discussions about Articles for Deletion in asking about a particular abuse that I see (moving the article to draft space to defeat the AFD). I will also comment on a few of the points in this thread and offer another suggestion.

I strongly disagree with any rule that !votes should be removed or deleted. It is the job of the closer to decide what !votes should be discounted, so that the removal of material before the close is pseudo-closing, which we should not do. Purely disruptive material is of course a special case. It can be redacted as RD3, and so can instead be blanked without redaction. But the original issue was the deletion of stupid !votes, not disruptive material. Leave the stupid stuff on the record. Maybe it should be stricken, but not removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree that AFDs should be semi-protected. One editor asks about article creators who are not yet auto-confirmed. Article creators must be auto-confirmed. The rare exception would be an editor who submits a draft that is approved by a reviewer before the editor has four days and ten edits. An admin should confirm them; it won't happen that often. If we do semi-protect AFDs, we should also specify that talk page requests will be ignored. On the other hand, if we do not routinely semi-protect AFDs, we should have a guideline about the occasional semi-protection of AFDs, and it should specify that talk page requests are ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

General Sanctions

There are a few editors who either disrupt AFDs, or inject a toxic atmosphere into AFD discussions. Such editors should be sanctioned. The community has a mixed record about disciplining editors who disrupt the AFD process. I would suggest that we ask the community to impose Community General Sanctions, authorizing expedited administrative action, for editors whose participation in AFDs (whether to Keep or to Delete, or simply to insult other editors) is disruptive. The Manual of Style already has ArbCom sanctions. Deletion is a process that is disrupted often enough that expedited administrative action should be authorized. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think I could support some form of this -- it seems like every couple weeks there is another huge thread on AN/I about someone (or multiple someones) being extremely rude on AfD. Of course, the sanctions themselves would have to be crafted rather carefully. jp×g 07:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely support this as an effective way to reform AfD. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I can support general sanctions for XfDs in general - not just AfD - and I say this knowing full well I've had previous interactions on XfDs that would have led me to getting sanctions were they in place at that point. To me, the points that need to be addressed are both the rudeness and repeatedly bringing up points that have already been dispensed with by multiple XfD commentors, which often results in rudeness (either from the IDHT user or the frustrated people having to reply to the same points over and over). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Would you be willing to provide examples of times when the community has failed to protect Wikipedia against future disruption by failing to sanction a particular editor (or set of editors) relating to AfD behavior? I recall there was some ANI thread a few months back regarding the Article Rescue Squadron, but I'm generally not familiar with the history here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Every ARS thread before the last one. Levivich 01:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. No biting new article creators with awareness notices during the deletion discussion at AFD. Or after deletion of their article.Lurking shadow (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support with caveats. No editors with less than X edits and x appearances at AfD should receive GS notice and must be handled through normal administrative channels. I'm not sure what those numbers should be, but the intent would be that only experienced editors should be subject to GS on this topic area. We need to cut down on the bad behavior and bickering between long-standing editors, not give every editor a hammer to wield against passionate newbies.

The following list consists of articles that should either be prodded or taken to AfD, and was produced by reviewing a small number of the articles created by banned sockmaster BlackJack. By reviewing the creations of editors like BlackJack lists this size or longer can be produced every day for years, and this is something that neither AfD nor Prod can handle - and the third option, silently redirecting, is not an option for many of these articles,^[a] and is opposed by some editors.

The existence of mass produced stubs that fail our notability guidelines is a problem that needs to be resolved to improve Wikipedia, but our current processes cannot handle that problem.

I believe that moving to user space or draft space all articles that do not include any sources that a reasonable editor could believe meets the requirements of WP:GNG would reduce the scale of the problem to one that can be handled through our normal processes, but based on the discussion above such a proposal would be rejected by the community. Instead, I open this discussion to find an alternative; a different process that would allow us to address the problem without overwhelming our existing processes.

BilledMammal (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree there's a larger issue with mass stubs being created on articles that (used to) meet WP:NSPORT based on database entries, that probably don't have significant coverage since the people only played a couple games. It's an issue with football and other sport articles too. Changing WP:NSPORT was the first step but dealing with the massive amount of stubs already created is a hard issue. However if the articles are so noncontroversial to delete, then a mass AfD should work. Tbh since the articles here are sourced and of dead people I don't think it's that big of an issue that the articles exist, beyond WP:NOTDATABASE. There are mass BLP creations that are more of an issue. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A few mass AFD's have been tried, though smaller than the list above, but they have all been rejected as WP:TRAINWRECKS. Unfortunately, that is also not an option. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the articles which have bee PRODed and, I'm afraid, that articles like these often take a long time to work up - and there aren't that many of us working on cricket articles in the sort of way that they need to be worked on. There are almost certainly people on these lists who are clearly going to turn out to be notable for other stuff - as soon as someone turns out to be an MCC member, for example, you can be reasonably certain that there's stuff written about them somewhere. In other cases there will almost always be sensible redirects which can be employed - in some cases you'll find short biographies on those redirect options and a fairly significant number of articles have already been redirected in similar ways without all the drama associated with this process.

I feel at this point that it's also really, really important to point out that the RfC proposals which were accepted to have "passed" specifically included a grandfather clause "so that if passed, there is not a sudden rush for AFD" (proposal 3, this RfC). That seems to have been conveniently ignored - it was discussed a little in the wall of text, but no conclusions about it were drawn and it could be considered to be a significant flaw in the RfC that it was never returned to.

I would also suggest that there is little if any issue with verifiability at all and that, to my knowledge, anyone who played for either Kent or Nottinghamshire from 1806 onward is likely to have some form of sourcing available if you know where to look (or, in Kent cases, to have already been redirected somewhere sensible or still being worked through): I don't know as much about the sourcing for other counties; that may exist, but just rushing in in such a way - 29 PRODs and an AfD on BlackJack's talk page in half an hour - means that it'll be almost impossible to suitably challenge all of these. So, thanks for that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

e2a (apologies) - there's at least one chap on that list above with a Wisden obituary. Yes, it's a short article - because no one's found time to add to it. Time. But you don't get a Wisden obit without having done something - yet there are no GNG sources here? Bit of a no ball there maybe? Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is not helpful. 35+prods in double-quick time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this makes it clear why we need an alternative process - if you don't think prod can handle 30 nominations a day, then the 120 that some editors are proposing above is clearly impossible, and that 120 only addresses the unsourced articles, not the non-notable ones. Do you have any suggestions? BilledMammal (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Could you not just nominate them for deletion at a slow rate? Will take a while but it allows a proper discussion to take place for each one. NemesisAT (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not practical. The two areas I have been looking at recently - the 1908 Olympics and articles created by BlackJack - I estimate have 2000 articles between them that need to be taken through deletion discussions. At a slow rate of twenty per day this will take a hundred days to get through, and these just make a small fraction of the articles that we need to go through. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That refers to BLPs doesn't it? And fails to address the grandfathering which was part of what was discussed in the RfC wall of text and which was never removed from the proposal that was deemed to pass. As Galobtter says above, these are not that big a deal - but people need time to work through lists and then redirect as appropriate (such as, for example, discussed at Talk:List of English cricketers (1826–1840) and the linked discussions). Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No, that discussion refers to unsourced articles in general. As for grandfathering/moratorium, I think that should be a separate discussion, either as a new proposal or as a request for clarification on the closers talk page - lets keep this discussion on topic. BilledMammal (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I have a suggestion: build an encyclopedia, you know, actually create articles or look to expand them. You seem to be one of many users who contribute virtually nothing beyond policy and bureaucracy. StickyWicket (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. As an alternative to user space and draft space, which both have issues, what about moving the articles to sub-pages on the relevant Wikiprojects? For example, all of the above articles could be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket, where they won't be lost, and where editors who are interested in developing articles on cricketers know where to find them. BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Having gotten through the first 22 of the list above, there's two that have very limited prose sources that I can find in a very short period of time. There are maybe another 2 or 3 where the sourcing is pretty weak. The others all have an appropriate level of sourcing that is similar to recent keeps at AfD. It helps that they all played for either Nottinghamshire or Middlesex - I didn't realise that most Middlesex chaps have prose sourcing on CricInfo. Some of them are obviously really quite notable - international amateur footballers, for example, and at least two who died in WWI and so will appear in various books about that (Wisden published one for the 2014 anniversary for example, and there's Final Wicket: Test and First Class Cricketers Killed in the Great War by Nigel McCrery which I think deals with every known WW1 death). Once I'm through further I can show what I've found, but none of what I've uncovered was difficult to find from sources I already knew about. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just got one who got a knighthood. I don't know if that's notable of course, but it seems like it might be to me. For the avoidance of doubt, I wouldn't have created those articles in that way without much better sourcing, but they were and it was deemed, at the time, acceptable. Not sure I've found any that come close to failing V or OR yet btw - and not close to failing either Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

And please don't assume that a reference to CricInfo is simply a database reference. Some have long prose sections as well - often the contents of a Wisden obituary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully you can find GNG compliant sourcing for at least some of them, though I'm not seeing any yet - of the few that have prose at CricInfo most are clearly not WP:SIGCOV - even the George Hart one you link above is mostly statistics and commentary on the club. Meanwhile, Trent Bridge is not an independent source for Nottingham players, and the Nottinghamshire role of honour is sourced to family members, so it isn't independent either; this is likely to be a discussion for WP:AFD, which is part of the issue.

To return to that issue, I mention WP:V and WP:OR as it would be best if we devise a solution that addresses articles that have no sources, as well as articles that are under sourced; what do you think of the proposal to move such articles to WikiProject space? It has the advantage of giving WikiProjects as much time as they need to find suitable sources for the article. BilledMammal (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

New page patrol and Articles for Creation help filter out very poorly sourced or unsourced articles. The newly created articles above do appear to have a source (albeit from a database) so these pass WP:OR and WP:V. I don't think there's any pressing need to remove articles from mainspace if they at least pass WP:V, these articles have been here since 2017 after all. The number of unsourced articles should be ever-decreasing as they are PRODed and nominated for deletion over time.

An article is most likely to be improved if it is left in mainspace, where readers can find it. Moving to draft, user, or project space will inevitably lead to these articles being forgotten about and never improved. NemesisAT (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's your list. I don't recall who wrote the NCCC profiles, but I'm pretty certain they're based (at least) on the work of Peter Wynne-Thomas who is, lets say, a pretty reliable source. I'm fairly certain there's an old journal of the ACS magazine where he rips BlackJack's research efforts to pieces as well, so it's sort of fitting (tbf, several people did, but I think Wynne-Thomas was one of them). You can try and argue that it's not independent if you want, but given the other sources listed in that obit it's clear that there are non-web sources as well and Wynne-Thomas didn't get the BEM for nothing.

Some of them already clearly have prose sources btw. I'll prioritise the BLPs of course, but I do have to go to work this week as well, so 100 articles like this is probably a months work at least, more likely two. Unless you simply want them churned through, which was pretty much the problem in the first place. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

See here for discussion of your sources. To return to the topic of how to deal with the huge numbers of articles that warrant being taken through deletion processes; do you have any suggestions, or thoughts on what I proposed above? BilledMammal (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. As NemesisAT says above, the best way for articles such as these to be improved is in mainspace and, as others have said, these articles really aren't an obvious priority. Mainspace is also the best place for people to consider whether articles need to be redirected or not. I'd suggest that at least 75% can be improved significantly, some obviously so. The other 25% or so, there's a case for a hard look to be had. Fwiw I'm fairly certain that I argued at the time many of these articles were created that there was no need to create a short article on every cricketer and that we should focus on producing articles on people who were obviously more notable. But at the time that was against the perceived wisdom. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, BlackJack went rogue and began granting first-class status to teams/matches which were never first-class, and subsequently created dozens of articles on cricketers who weren't first-class; don't worry, I successfully had them all PRODed about 2 years ago, and I think I got them all! Then of course there was all that business with him and Daft. StickyWicket (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a few good doable steps that could be taken some of which would be no big deal:

• Establish the expectation that providing wp:notability-related sourcing (and thus determining whether or not it exists) is the job of the 1,000,000 editors, not the 30 NPP'ers or researchers at AFD. Otrherwise the math is horrendous. Each of the million editors can create a non-notable stub in minutes and then 30 NPP'ers are supposed to "prove a negative" that wp:notability-suitable sources don't exist before doing something with the article.
• For new articles dependent on sourcing to meet wp:notability (i.e. not explicitly satisfying a SNG criteria) if the article does not have such sourcing, it gets moved to draft.
• Modify wp:before accordingly.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There's just not a great way to deal with this stuff, for reasons mostly listed above. They're lazy articles on borderline-notable-at-best subjects that add nothing beyond what you could find in a database, but also aren't making outrageous unsourced claims or promoting some product. In short, it's hard to make a case for urgency. The big issue I wanted to bring up is just: have we figured out how to stop these from being created yet? I know one prolific stub-creator has been sanctioned, and the person who created these is blocked, for for other reasons. AFAIK the intersection of policies and guidelines dealing with mass creation (MASSCREATE/MEATBOT) still fail to address this effectively, despite a few people adamantly saying it does. That needs to be the priority, at which point it would be easier to make a decision about what to do with all the stubs created up to that point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

One crisis is that NPP is drowning partially due to the "need to prove a negative" math imbalance problem discussed, or demoralization from the criticisms for not having made that thorough search through non-english articles in non-english character sets. From what I've seen, the big numbers aren't rogue stub creators, they are "hobbyists". One hobby might be to create an article for each train station along a 20 station rail line. Another might make one for every sports player that they run across. Another might make a "stats only" article for each season of a particular sports team. Another will create a stats-only article for the playoff for each season of the league that they are in. Another might make a permastub of the water commission for each of the 20 districts in a particular state in Uganda. Another might pick a bunch of road intersections and make an article for each one, consisting of all of the businesses near that intersection. Another might make a stats-only article for each election that was held in a particular area. Another common one is promotional for an non-notable individual, collecting "references" that mention their name (county birth records, posts by their employer of position changes etc.) The common thread is that none have independent in-depth coverage of the topic in the references given in the article, and where there is not clear compliance with an SNG which would bypass the need for such sources. IMO the items I proposed would help much. North8000 (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia is to remain "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" there will be no stopping this stuff. To make the ends meet, we need to either qualify the motto as we have, for instance, by not directly accepting articles from IP editors, or we need to stop worrying so much about this pollution. I personally feel that deletion discussions are harmful and divisive for the community and I would prefer we didn't have them, if possible. One can dream. ~Kvng (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Framed in those terms, I have a hard time seeing what the crisis is. That "pollution" is the stuff Wikipedia was built from, and those "hobbyists" are the people who built it. The project's ongoing decline is the result of being starved of that work and those workers; the least we can do is to avoid making that starvation even worse. That said, I do think that the age of bulk creation (say >50 articles/day) should certainly be over and should only be allowed, if at all, with prior community agreement. -- Visviva (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It is accurately described as "pollution" if your goal is to produce a "finished" encyclopedia. I prefer to view Wikipedia as an ongoing project. ~Kvng (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng: We haven't directly accepted articles from IP editors for many years now. Certainly not since when I registered, May 2009. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Right, sorry, I meant non-autoconfirmed, see WP:ACTRIAL etc. ~Kvng (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Two things that should happen:
  • We probably need to update instructions at RFC such that when the result is the potential deletion/redirecting/draftification of a large number of articles, the fate of those articles should be determined as part of the rFC.eg should a granfathering period be used before such changes occur as to give editors time to repair them. This is often overlooked and creates confusion when one editor races off to perform the RFC without clear consensus along this path.
  • We should be seeking to redirect as much as possible to maintain search terms and leave the prior article text available to future editors that may discover new sources to improve. --Masem (t) 19:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Redirects are cheap" and it's a great solution, but we have a contingent of editors who will argue that redirection is a "back door to deletion"; this argument is happening right now at ANI. Levivich 21:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There are certainly articles on the list that BM put forward that I would think are redirect candidtes - one was already on my radar, but only about 10 of those articles were anywhere near my radar. In purely cricket terms - as the articles identified are all cricketers - redirection is certainly something that the cricket wiki project tends to do these days. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We really need to trout those that claim redirection is a backdoor to deletion. It is the most civil and most non-admin way of simply removing text of poor articles that can be reversed by any editor and keeps the topic as a search term. --Masem (t) 22:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a massive discussion at ANI which is fundamentally about the issue of short stubs with database-only sources. A significant topic in the ANI is the refusal by one editor to recognise redirect as an ATD at AFD. I completely agree with Masem that we should seek to redirect all such articles. The one condition must be at least one WP:RS in the article which satisfies WP:V – failing that, it's a PROD or an AFD. That is because an article doesn't need notability to be redirected but it does need verification. I suggest a category approach to the volume problem (see below). NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 13:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Something I mentioned below but want to emphasize here is that we should consider how article creation intersects with WP:BURDEN. If an editor adds unsourced text and I object to it, I can reasonably remove it if they refuse to produce sources; they cannot demand that I do a source search for them. This is reasonable and necessary - someone has to do the hard work of finding sources, and naturally it ought to be the person who wants text included, since they have the strongest motivation to do so. Yet if they add an entirely unsourced stub, and I object to all the text on it, what is my recourse? I can remove unsourced text... unless I get to the point where the resulting article is blank. In the situation where the uncited text is the entire article, does WP:BEFORE mean that WP:BURDEN is inverted and suddenly the obligation is on me search for sources before uncited removing text, even if the original creator made not the slightest effort to search for sources themselves? --Aquillion (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

We need to think outside the box

This discussion, and the one about draftspace above, highlights a gap in our system: we don’t really have a good system for drawing attention to existing articles (some years old) that we WANT to keep, but are NOT (currently) up to our minimum standards. Articles that have potential to be fixed… and might be, if only people knew that they needed fixing.

We need to brainstorm and come up with something new… Something that will highlight these articles and encourage editors to actually work on them. Ideas? Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• To start us off on thinking outside the box… Perhaps we could have a section for this on the WP main page - sort of an opposite to our Featured Article - where we point editors to (say) the “Today’s list of 10 Articles most needing improvement”. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Blueboar Perhaps we could move Wikipedia:Community portal/Open tasks to the bottom of the main page? Or a condensed version of it. I'm not sure if that proposal would be able to gain consensus among MP regulars who want to see it highlight the best of Wikipedia for readers, but then again we've always been upfront about our shortcomings. Might be worth proposing in an RFC. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'd be in favour of something like this. But never mind pointing editors to something: our target should be recruiting people as editors. — Bilorv (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's look where the actual crisis is. The system that Wikipedia HAS for that (New Page Patrol) is drowning and demoralized, with a balance tipper being issues described here. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Except I think there's a difference between new pages and old pages that are in need of attention. I think all the discussion about new page patrol in this discussion is a red herring. Our focus here should be on old pages, not new pages. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah… I am really talking about drawing more attention to OLDER Pages that need fixing. We HAVE a system for improving new pages (AFC, NPP, Draftspace, etc) - which, while it might not work perfectly, is at least a system. We don’t really have any system to find and fix problematic older pages other than deletion (and that isn’t always the best option). Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The maintenance categories were intended to be that system for finding and fixing problematic older pages. The pages get tagged with a template saying what needs to be fixed about them ({{copyedit}}, or {{unsourced}} for example), and get sorted into appropriate categories which are broken down by month so people can fix the oldest first. The pages are also categorized in normal ways so people particularly interested in, say, Iran, can find articles that are in both Category:Iran and Category:All articles lacking sources. The Wikipedia:Task Center exists, and Wikipedia:Community portal/Open tasks is in the community portal in the left sidebar and displays an ever changing list of articles in selected maintenance categories to try to encourage people to work on these older articles in need of maintenance. Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles exists, to encourage people to try to fix such articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors exists also, to encourage people to try to fix articles with those problems. I don't think it's accurate to say that "we don't really have any system to find and fix problematic older pages." I think it's more accurate to say that the system we have is - - suboptimal. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that those projects are just so darned big; and I know stuff - and where sources are - for a much smaller subset of articles. I could, for example, look at all cricket related articles which are classed as stubs, but there are more than 33,000 of them - and some of them really aren't stubs. Now, there are things that I can do, because I know my limitations, but I'm not sure there's a simple way of solving this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing, look at https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Cricket.html and pick your favorite kind of editing. Do you like style editing? There's 55 cricket-related articles tagged for style work. Do you like adding the first source to an unref'd page? 171 candidates await your attention. Do you like de-peacocking pages? Check out the seven articles, and then maybe expand your goal to include the 21 tagged for promotionalism. If you want to solve a backlog, there are some manageable subsets available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

We already have several wikiprojects targeting neglected articles: WP:AFI, WP:ORPHAN, WP:RESCUE. I guess we need to think even further outside the box. ~Kvng (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There's also the huge cue on articles tagged for notability. There's the asymmetry at the root of it again. Quick and easy for each of the 1,000,000 editors to create, more work for a scarcer volunteer to notability source or see if sourcing is available. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The asymmetry is only a problem if we have a deadline. Without a deadline the tags are potentially useful information and a warning to the reader. But, whether we have a deadline is also something that's argued about. ~Kvng (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that these WikiProjects all select from the same insular cohort of people—the Wikipedians who spend their time making and improving content, who are unable to produce more hours in the day just because more things are asked of them. We need to target new people by highlighting neglected articles. Anybody who has been here for a while has 0 shortage of tasks they know that they could usefully do. And yet the general public are unaware we are slowly dying under the weight of the tasks we need to do with the small size of the community we have to do it. — Bilorv (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with needing to find new people to join the Wikipedia community whose talents and motivation are well-suited for backlogged tasks, as I discussed earlier. isaacl (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• A version of SuggestBot? ie the bot suggests, say, 10 old unsourced articles based on one's editing profile and language skills on the talk pages of all active editors with Wikipedia Library access; preferably on an opt-out basis so that editors don't have to opt in to get the message once but can opt out if they don't want continued suggestions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Where this whole discussion is going wrong is the premise that unsourced articles are intrinsically problematic. They are not. It is unsourced problematic articles that are intrinsically problematic. SpinningSpark 07:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly, the problems are the problems. There are however many Wikipedians who are content or prefer to solve problems by moving a whole class of contributions outside the scope of the project (through deletion or tightened acceptance criteria). This seems to me to be at odds with our stated "encyclopedia anyone can edit" mission. ~Kvng (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, this makes no sense. How would one know an article is not problematic when it has no sources? (Obviously not referring to proofing or layout issues). Unsourced articles are just anonymous postings on the internet. With the same baggage of associated problems. 64.18.11.64 (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  It sometimes happens that editors actually know things. We hear the news, we read books, we remember things we learned in the past, and when we see that same information in Wikipedia, we know whether it's correct. As an example, we don't happen to have an article on Christmas candy, and yet I'm pretty sure that if someone wrote a few general sentences – Christmas candy is sold for the Christmas holiday; sometimes it's homemade; candy canes are one iconic type – I would be able to figure out whether it was seriously problematic even if no sources were listed on the page. I could even, if I were concerned about something in the article, take my concerns to my favorite web search engine and do a quick little WP:BEFORE-like search. Good editors don't always need to have all the sources served up to them on a silver candy dish.

  To put it another way, the word verifiable means that someone other than the author is able to verify the material through any method. It doesn't mean that the material is already cited in the article (although that's the best system). The capital of France is Paris, and that information is verifiable even if there are no little blue clicky numbers on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  On Wikipedia, verifiability means that. See WP:BURDEN, which says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, if – and only if – the material is challenged (=your second quotation), Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged, a direct quotation, or contentious matter about BLPs, then an inline citation is required. See WP:MINREF.

  But think the absence of a little blue clicky number, even for material that we require to be cited, does not mean that the material cannot be verified in a published, reliable source; it only means that the material has not yet been cited. If uncited material were "by definition" also unverifiable, then we would never add {{fact}} tags; we would only remove uncited material as being a violation of WP:V.

  @BilledMammal, I invite you to finish your first incomplete sentence with the definition given in the policy: "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."

  Note the absence of any specific required method in that definition. If you "can check that the information comes from a reliable source" by remembering that your geography textbook told you that the capital of France is called Paris, or if you "can check that the information comes from a reliable source" by taking a quick trip to your favorite web search engine, then you actually "can check that the information comes from a reliable source". If you "can check", the material is verifiable even if uncited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  All editors think they know something. How is a reader to tell? Research the so-called "article" themselves to find the sources that verify the editors' presumed knowledge? Wikipedia may be unserious as well as unreliable. 64.18.11.64 (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Most readers will trust the competence of Wikipedia editors to have identified and tagged or removed problems in articles. Remember that WP:V applies to any material challenged or likely to be challenged. It does not apply to everything (see WP:BLUE). ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Can we not engage in fantasies or wishful thinking. How does anyone know that readers "trust the competence of Wikipedia editors"? Why would anyone trust Wikipedia editors? Are they an enlightened class of beings that can do no wrong? Is it because they can spout admonitions regarding policies they themselves have put in place? Wikipedia can put a million policies and guidelines in place, and it will not make any difference if the contributions cannot be proven to be based on fact. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  There has been research into the question of reader trust, e.g., m:Research:The role of citations in how readers evaluate Wikipedia articles. In general, citations don't seem to make much difference, especially for people who are just looking up something quickly. It might be useful here to remember than only 3 out of every 1,000 page views result in someone clicking on a (=one) reference. If memory serves, the median citation gets clicked on once every four months.

  Like any other information-oriented site, trust is highest when the content aligns with your expectations/POV. (To address this, we have a fair bit of "Although the government of Grand Fenwick claims they were only trying to install indoor plumbing, scholars agree that..." content. This helps people get past their POV by acknowledging that X is the common view even if the common view is wrong, a Lie-to-children, etc.)

  Also, specifically for Wikipedia, trust tends to be higher among readers who haven't fully grasped that anyone can edit most pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  The research involved 1419 participants, of whom only about a third participated fully. This from an average daily readership of dozens and dozens of millions of unique users. It was undertaken at the behest and direction of WMF, not an uninvolved third party. Without knowing & evaluating the sampling methods used (if any), afaic the results are not in any way indicative. The first and last statements above:

  1. In general, citations don't seem to make much difference, especially for people who are just looking up something quickly.

  2. Also, specifically for Wikipedia, trust tends to be higher among readers who haven't fully grasped that anyone can edit most pages.

  As should be expected, people would tend to trust something they already think trustworthy. Why look up citations? Wikipedia has published this article, which means it is true, right? 50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  I believe you will find that the abbreviation e.g. means "for example" and not "to name the only research ever done on this question in the history of Wikipedia's existence". Perhaps if you read more of it, you would find the answers to your questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Realistically, if you want to draw attention to poorly cited/written articles, then a rolling contest, similar to how WP:WOMRED works might be clever. Drives to improve articles by category, rather than creating new articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• What about the following proposal? It would shift the workload of finding sources away from the tiny number of New Page Patrollers and onto the much larger number of editors creating articles, which should address the concerns of NPP, as well as ensuring that the problem of unsourced and under-sourced articles does not become larger than it currently is.
  1. All new articles must include sources that a reasonable editor could believe demonstrate compliance with GNG or a relevant SNG. New articles that fail to do so are moved to draft space or user space.

BilledMammal (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We basically have this requirement at WP:AFC and it does reduce reviewer workload. The problem is that many of the editors creating new articles are new to Wikipedia and can't clear that hurdle to the satisfaction of experienced editors (AfC reviewers). After a few attempts they end up abandoning their draft (and probably Wikipedia too). The abandoned drafts are deleted 6-months later per WP:G13. It is a process that, in the end, deletes reasonable starts on articles on notable subjects and drives away potential new Wikipedia editors in the process. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest creation of categories by subject for batches of old stubs needing review due to lack of sources. Any confirmed editor could add a batch like BM's list above to the appropriate category (e.g., cricket or football or Olympics). This is easily done with a tool like AWB. In due course, any confirmed editor could review the individual entries for redirect or AFD or expansion. I think this would be a practical solution for non-urgent cases like the BM list in which all the article subjects are (I believe) long dead, but clearly we still need immediate action for individual articles which have a BLP concern. For new articles without sources, they should be tagged for a week and then straight to PROD – if the creator doesn't respond in a week, it is their loss. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 13:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker, you can't send unsourced articles to PROD without doing WP:BEFORE. Who do you suggest would do that? ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This a good example of where we all fall down. We need an extra condition that articles without ANY sources can be deleted, via either PROD or AFD, if they have have been tagged with Unreferenced for seven days and the creator has not responded. The onus for sourcing such articles (remember, these are NEW articles) is on the article creator. We are supposed to be thinking outside the box so saying that we can't send it to PROD or AFD without BEFORE is inside the box, is out of scope and completely misses the point. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 18:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Too far outside the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" box for me. I would oppose such a proposal per WP:NODEADLINES and WP:DEMOLISH. ~Kvng (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• You can't send unsourced articles to PROD without doing WP:BEFORE - this is untrue (we have a huge discussion on ANI right now where there's a clear lack of consensus supporting that position.) BEFORE applies to AFD, not to prod, which is a more lightweight process; doing such a search before prodding an article is not and has never been a requirement. Editors might choose to do so if they wish, but removals (whether trimming text or removing entire stubs and articles) are also part of Wikipedia's maintenance and its status as an encyclopedia anyone can edit. I would strenuously oppose any suggestion that would make BEFORE a hard requirement for prodding - that is too much red tape to place on a process that is vital to Wikipedia's quality. --Aquillion (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Up until 2013 we had a line of manually-curated requested redlinks that displayed at the top of Special:Recentchanges, initially directly in MediaWiki:Recentchangestext and later in Template:Recent changes article requests. What little expertise in template hackery I could ever claim to have is a decade and a half out of date, but perhaps someone less incompetent could generate lists of unreferenced article titles to be displayed via gadget atop one's watchlist? —Cryptic 18:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  That's a good idea. Some kind of banner type thing that displays on the watchlist that provides a list of 3-5 random articles from maintenance categories. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We need to think outside the box... section 2

The key question to ask when trying to get people to do a task is what motivates them? Regarding sifting through a backlog of unsourced articles, I believe the most likely volunteers are ones with a strong interest in the subject area, or in documenting historical events. It might be helpful to start initiatives to reach out to historical societies, librarian associations, university history departments, or other similar organizations to find appropriate people who could help with Wikipedia. As others have suggested, perhaps newly-retired persons in these groups would be a good source of new editors, as they would be free of career concerns that might make them more likely to spend leisure research time on areas more directly related to their work. There can also be initiatives to reach out to the professional or credible amateur historians in specific topic areas (sports leagues, industries, and so forth) and find if they or anyone their suggest might be interested in working on Wikipedia articles. Current editors too can think about who they know that would make good Wikipedia editors. (For example, if you're a frequent contributor to the candle power forum, you might know some other contributors there who could be a good fit.)

Regarding trying to limit the problem at the source—that is, article creation time, I once wrote that the most valuable asset of Wikipedia editors is time. We need to encourage new editors to learn of the importance of respecting the time of others. An editor might start out not providing citations for their contributions, but they should be progressing to a stage where they do locate appropriate sources and cite them, to help save everyone time. When Wikipedia was starting out and everyone knew each other, a stub creator could still build rapport with another editor who would add citations. With its current community size, though, editors need to be more mindful of not adding to someone else's list of tasks, when they can learn how to do various fundamental tasks themselves. isaacl (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The new editors I've met who have specific expertise/knowledge and have tried to contribute that have uniformly been driven away by the AFC/NPP process. Academics in a topic get accused of being paid editors, or having COI, or not dotting some particular i, and they just walk away because Wikipedia is not important to them. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That's part of why I think targeted initiatives could be useful: we would seek out editors who have a high drive to ensure that history is documented accurately, and help them understand from the outset the expectations of the English Wikipedia community. (My proposal was in response to the question about going through the backlog of unsourced articles, so the article creation and new page patrol processes are not specifically related to that problem, but I agree they are generally relevant for recruiting.) isaacl (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is already outside the box. That box was called Nupedia. This was quite conventional, requiring credentialled experts and careful reviews before publication. The consequence was that little got done and so this box was discarded. Wikipedia introduced radical, box-breaking ideas:

1. anyone can edit
2. be bold
3. ignore all rules
4. the content is free

Of course, the price of this diversity, openness and freedom is that Wikipedia's content may be unreliable or flaky and that's why every single page carries a disclaimer: "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". Naturally, control freaks, pedants and perfectionists can't stand this and so they keep trying to put Wikipedia back in the box. But every time this is tried, it fails again – see Citizendium, Scholarpedia, &c.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

— George Santayana

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That is self-serving sloganeering. For over 2 decades before Wikipedia came into being, such purported "freedoms" were available to users of bulletin board systems, many of whom were completely unmoderated. And quite a few were devoted to non-technical subjects. As an early user, I can attest that a big difference in my experience was that participants did not have the narcissistic attitude that many views at VPP display, imo. I don't remember anyone crowing about how "free" and "open" and "groundbreaking" everything was. Well, the technology companies did, as was to be expected. And the media. Also to be expected. 64.18.11.64 (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• These are not empty slogans; they are fundamental policies. 64.18.11.64 demonstrates the reality of the first one by posting as an anonymous IP and expecting to be taken seriously in a discussion of the project's governance. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps posting as "Andrew" (?) or as any of the other quirky handles will make one be taken seriously? And why would that be so? How about discussing the argument instead of the handle/IP that posted it? That would hint one is not self-involved, and therefore capable of seriousness. Neither is the argument one of governance, which is a derivative issue. Instead it is about this: encyclopedias should deal in verifiable facts and nothing else. Once this simple principle is accepted, the governance to put into practice is also simple. Otherwise, all these "governance" discussions are a way to bypass it by endless exceptions and procedural proposals and counter-proposals by a miniscule, obsessing minority. In the meantime, unverified and potentially unreliable or biased or false or hurtful items may proliferate thanks to Wikipedia. 66.108.237.136 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Andrew is entirely right in that the policy of letting everything in and checking through it later was the one and only strategy that allowed an encyclopaedia to be built explosively fast. Everything else failed. Maybe there are other strategies that would have worked, but nobody has found them so far. What we don't need is another mass-deletion disaster like the introduction of G13 caused. SpinningSpark 14:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Anything that lacks quality control can be built explosively fast. How is this a new situation? 50.75.226.250 (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Because against all expectations and common sense, and unlike buildings and bridges, it actually worked and did not collapse. And we are still the only ones doing it. SpinningSpark 15:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Longevity in Wikipedia's case may only indicate it was lucky and/or adaptable. It says nothing about value. The "luck" part stems from the fact that people love to expound on topics that interest them. When it is done at no/minimal cost, and with little repercussion when they include their POV in it, this is an added bonus. And this is not even considering other, self-promoting reasons. By targeting that type of editor (a limitless supply), all Wikipedia has to do is adapt. The "adaptability" part comes into play by designing PAGs that basically seek to accommodate the "lucky" part, rather than getting it right. That is why you have pillar-policies like WP:V that wobble, accepting information that is not verified. Instead editors are coddled by prodding and implied assurances that somebody will fix it in the glorious future awaiting all published, but unverified information. Seems like a great recipe for mediocrity. I believe that this is borne out by the fact that this discussion is taking place. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl, What's the difference between what your proposing here and WikiProjects? Some have tried to take subject-matter angle on reducing AfC backlog. Submissions have been categorized by subject. I'm not sure how successful it has been. We still have a backlog. The categorization is additional work. ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiProjects generally don't try to recruit people to become part of the Wikipedia community. I'm suggesting we need to find people whose personal motivation and skill set are well-suited for looking for appropriate sources for unsourced articles, and get them to become Wikipedia editors, rather than hoping we can convert existing Wikipedia editors into ones who like to work on the unsourced article backlog. isaacl (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep everything - I trust this has been proposed before but if we're going outside the box, let's put it on the table. Let's stop deleting stuff. We spend too much time and goodwill between editors in deletion discussions. We repel new editors by deleting or rejecting their contributions. We don't delete stuff because we're short on storage space; We delete it because we don't think it is ready for readers to see. Let's keep everything but make the good stuff easy to find and hide the crap. We can use Wikiproject quality ratings, ORES, or presence of certain tags or tag density to distinguish crap from good. We can configure the Wikimedia search engine and robots.txt to hide the crap. ~Kvng (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to keep everything, or even to keep everything that isn't an attack page, copyvio, etc.

That said, maybe we need to get some agreement on what the purpose of AFC and NPP is. If you think that patrolling an article via NPP means "This doesn't appear to qualify for speedy deletion", then you will get different (and faster) results than if you think that the same action means "This is a non-embarrassing article on a notable subject that almost certainly won't be deleted or even complained about." WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you see as the crucial difference between deleted and not readily accessible. I understood the argument for deleting stuff was to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. If nobody that matters sees low-quality stuff, what's the harm in retaining it? ~Kvng (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I am doubtful that deleting pages improves the quality of the encyclopedia. I think that mistakes "reduced risk of my friend asking me why Wikipedia has such lousy articles" for "improving what's here". For myself, I'm not really fussed about readers stumbling across a low-quality encyclopedia article. Especially for obscure subjects, a sub-stub might be the best information available to them, and "Alice wrote The Sun is Really Big in 2002" might be all the reader wanted to know.

However, I do think that Wikipedia needs to remain an encyclopedia. I don't object if it is a somewhat odd encyclopedia, but it should not be something else entirely (e.g., a travel itinerary, an instruction manual, or a sales brochure). When people publish hopelessly unencyclopedic pages here, we should delete (or transwiki and then delete) those pages.

As for hiding the lousy-but-encyclopedic pages: If you want them to stop being lousy pages, then you shouldn't hide them (in Draft: or otherwise). The research is clear that visibility leads to improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a new perspective for me and makes me wonder how many different perspectives there are. We can't make everyone happy if everyone has a different vision. ~Kvng (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be something that distinguishes Wikipedia from an open web host that anyone can edit. Without any structure, there's little reason to go to Wikipedia versus other sites that come up in a web search. isaacl (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is getting pretty broad like "what is Wikipedia" .....vs the "everything"/ zero-selectivity option which is called the internet. The answer/ distinction is in the "should this article exist?" (= "what is Wikipedia?) policies and guidelines, especially wp:not, 5P and WP:notability. Although there are issues with those criteria and the execution of them I think that overall they are a pretty good answer to the question. So if there is an unsourced stub 'of a suitable topic I don't consider that to be a problem. If the system for assuring that articles in Wikipedia are "of a suitable topic" (New Page Patrol) starts breaking (which it is) then we do have a problem. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It sort of reminds me of someone who wants to smoke in the non-smoking section because it isn't smelly. So I want my writing to be elevated by being in the selective Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be selective about including my writing.  :-) North8000 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, we need a bulletin board, or a shared collaborative space for identifying articles in need of improvement, in the context of being a collaborative group effort, and which brings its information to the editors, rather than waiting until editors come by to visit the bulletin board on their own. Sm8900 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900: There is WP:TAFI, maybe that wikiproject could be more active? I used to contribute there quite frequently. There's a process for selecting articles: page views, low quality, general interest to readers, etc. At the very least looking at the successful TAFI noms is something that could be a starting point. Clovermoss (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Clovermoss, that sounds like a a good idea, actually. would you be willing to work together, and to be in contact, to explore ways to utilize that? please feel free to let me know. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Sure, anytime! Clovermoss (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• My opinion is that this is best settled via our consensus-building process; and our consensus-building process works best when we avoid placing too much weight on one default outcome (after all, if we place too much weight on one default outcome, then people whose edits are favored by that outcome are incentivized to just roll forwards with controversial changes and accomplish them via WP:FAITACCOMPLI while ignoring objections.) Maintaining that balance helps keep new page patrolling from being overwhelmed, too. Based on that it should be roughly as easy to remove or object to a new article as it is to create it; and if someone can easily create a large number of similar stubs, it should be roughly as easy to raise objections to them and remove them. I also... thought we had settled these rancorous inclusionism-vs-deletionism debates long ago by having a rigorously-defined set of notability guidelines, so I'm curious why they're flaring back up. It might be worth tracing things back to that and trying to solve the underlying dispute (much like how the original dispute was ultimately solved by reaching a firm consensus that notability was required coupled with a rigorous definition of what it is.) That said, when there's a large number of similar articles created at once, we do have the existing solution of using a single AFD to cover all of them - though such AFDs are often naturally going to be difficult to reach a consensus on, they do exist for situations where the problem is obvious. --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Also, belatedly, I think that part of the problem here is that the interpretation of WP:BEFORE some people are pushing for here (especially if it applies to PROD) essentially inverts WP:BURDEN - an editor can create a hundred stubs with no citations, and without even making any effort to search for citations, then demand that other people search for citations before even suggesting that the articles might be deleted. That's inappropriate and is what has lead to WP:NPP getting so overloaded - everyone likes creating articles, nobody likes the work of citing them, but pushing that work onto other people results in a flood of uncited articles that never get cited. We need to follow WP:BURDEN and make a hard rule that if you've added any text - included creating an article - you have the responsibility to cite it; you cannot demand that other people search for sources before removing it. I've created a discussion for a relatively narrow proposal related to this here, but I think we might want to reconsider WP:BEFORE and generally downgrade it to a suggestion rather than a requirement, while emphasizing the fact that an article's creator should, ideally, include sources, and have the burden of doing so if there's a dispute over their addition. --Aquillion (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately the bottom line of this problem (if we agree that it is a problem) is simply that newbies are incompetent article creators, it takes far more experience than autoconfirmed to create a decent article. If we're really serious about solving this we should require extended confirmed before allowing article creation. Autoconfirmed is not an effective barrier against SPAs creating their vanispamcruftisement articles. Imho ACTRIAL was good but too timid. "Anyone can edit", but article creation is an order of magnitude more complex than fixing typos. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

IMO it's not that broad. Article creation instructions just need these first steps defined:

• Step 1: Think of a topic / title
• Step 2: Find 1 or 2 independent sources that cover it it depth

North8000 (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to even do that. While I believe (as I said above) that the WP:BURDEN is on an article's creator or people who want to retain it to find sources for it, keep in mind that even WP:V only requires sources for material that is challenged or which is likely to be challenged. I think that that cautious wording in policies is generally good, outside of a few red-line ones like WP:3RR or WP:BLP, which isn't called for here; the real problem is that some policies, especially WP:BEFORE, were written without that level of caution. What we should do instead is adjust BEFORE and perhaps even PROD to reflect WP:BURDEN, specifically:

• Make the requirement to do a source search in BURDEN a suggestion, not a hard requirement. People reading too much into that and attaching too much importance to it is at the root of many of the current rancor. It is a good thing to do but it's unreasonable to place the burden for such a source-search on the people who want to remove something, especially when there's no such hard requirement for the person who added it or the people who want to retain it; the ultimate burden of searching for sources lies on people who want to add or retain something, not on people who want to remove it. Emphasizing that will ultimately lead to more people participating in the process by aligning what people are encouraged to do with what they have an actual motivation to do as volunteers.
• Make it so if an entirely unsourced article is WP:PRODed or redirected, anyone who removes the prod or reverts the redirect must add at least one source. (And a deprod which does not add a source to a totally unsourced article would be invalid, so their deprod may be reverted.) I don't think that that is an onerous requirement - it can be literally any source, they just need to do that bare minimum. It would not totally resolve everything but it would encourage the people who want to retain articles (and who therefore have a motivation to put some effort into searching for sources) to actually do so.

With these changes we could still allow newbies to create unsourced stubs and limit WP:BITEing them to merely sometimes having their edits undone. I don't think that having an unsourced edit undone when someone challenges it is a particularly harsh thing to happen. That way they will slowly learn that they need to add sources, but will still be able to participate with uncontroversial additions initially. --Aquillion (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

As long as the article titles / topics made it through a proper NPP, everything beyond that is just article building/improvement yet to be done. So IMO the only crisis is that NPP is collapsing. One one of the reasons for the NPP issue is related to this discussion. The core of the math is that about 10 NPP'ers need to manually review about 500 articles per day. And a big contributing math problem relating to this discussion is the burden being on those ten people do to GNG source searches instead of on the million editors that create the articles. Note that this relates to notability sourcing, not simply sourcing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

What about problematic articles that existed prior to the creation of NPP? They never got the kind of initial NPP review you are talking about! Is there a way to better highlight these older articles so they get the attention they need? Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• The problem is that notability searching requires knowledge of our notability and WP:RS policies. A requirement of "at least one source, of any type, at all" is not that onerous and can easily be done by any user, but requiring "sufficient sources that pass WP:RS to satisfy the WP:GNG or the topic-specific WP:NOTABILITY guideline" is a much more serious change. I suppose it could still be part of what I outlined above - ie. if an article was never reviewed, a source that someone is willing to assert passes RS and which satisfies the GNG must be found if the article is challenged before a prod can be removed or an article turned back from a redirect, so the requirements only come into play if someone challenges it. But to avoid time-consuming debates for every single article and putting too much weight on PROD or redirects, I would say that the simple assertion that a source passes those things would be sufficient (and if someone constantly makes assertions that are plainly absurd when removing prods or de-redirecting articles, then they can get dragged to ANI or whatever, but hopefully that wouldn't happen much. And it wouldn't be for borderline cases, it would just be for if someone is plainly, repeatedly, and intentionally using sources that they themselves cannot in good faith think are sufficient.) That would keep the policy lightweight, and avoid onerous requirements for situations where there is no dispute, while shifting the WP:BURDEN to people who want to create or retain text so more people than just NPPers are searching for sources. --Aquillion (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• I think that "Find 1 or 2 independent sources that cover the topic in depth" doesn't require specialized knowledge and 99% of the time would satisfy or self-screen for wp:notability. And make this particular thing a "soft" expectation ("This is what Wikipedia editors do when creating a new article") and not a structural change. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

We need to think outside the box... section 3

I have an out of the box idea that may or may not be useful. I think something that has always been a "win" for Wikipedia as a whole is that its meant to be a crowdsourced encyclopedia. While that's true, our reader-to-editor ratio is terrible and not great for the long-term viability of the website. I'm not saying this as an "end to Wikipedia" essay or claiming that I can somehow fix all of Wikipedia's problems with one idea, but I had an idea that might lead to some editor engagement and help with our backlog of 450,000+ citations needed tags at Category:Articles with unsourced statements. Basically, I was thinking of something along the lines of 1Lib1Ref, but beyond libranians. The "average potential Wikipedian" as it were. The phrase citation needed is already an Internet meme, used outside of contexts related to Wikipedia, and learning how to cite a sentence is one of the lower barrier to entry backlogs. If we could get 0.1% of the people who read Wikipedia on any given day (228+ million, assuming each pageview is someone unique, which is likely a flawed assumption [16] but still we have a massive readership to editorship ratio) that would be 228,000 citation needed tags dealt with. I think that the potential that is there compared to trying to constantly reach out to the 4,700 people who make more than 100 edits a month [17] would be a more realistic way of dealing with backlogs like this. Clovermoss (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Clovermoss, I agree… The question is: Can we find a better way to encourage that 0.1% of readers to get involved and do this? Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Blueboar: There's a lot of potential ways. Reaching out to people who are more involved in general community outreach, like Bluerasberry, would likely be a good idea. The impression I recieved from #1Lib1Ref is that part of what made it successful was the social media hashtag. People like recieving validation and being a part of something greater. Editing Wikipedia fits with what a lot of people consider to be within the spirit of volunteerism. Maybe we could do something like a banner on the main page eventually, if there's actually a solid plan for something like this to happen. People get banners asking them for financial donations, why not something that asks them for 15 minutes of their time? Clovermoss (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: thanks for pinging me. I do not have solutions but I can present new options for discussion.

For anyone interested in off-wiki outreach, I recommend talking by voice or video to other wiki editors. This is a bit unusual in wiki culture and many people have never had an off-wiki conversation with other editors, but individuals and groups are friendly.

Anyone can join Wikimedia NYC online meetups - Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. These include discussions about editing. For anyone who only wants to talk about organizing in the United States, there are monthly meta:WALRUS meetups. If any somewhat experienced wiki editor wants to chat with me then I would do so, and I am especially interested in talking with anyone who would agree to a video recorded and public chat about nearly anything wiki. I wish more groups would organize live conversations because I feel there are limits to what we can plan only with text posts on wiki.

Besides talks, if anyone is feeling bold and brave enough to ask the Wikimedia Foundation for money, then I would support your request to meta:grants:start. Money does not solve all problems but the WMF does offer a lot and much of it goes unused for lack of applications. US$2000 requests are relatively easy for individuals; requests of $100,000 are relatively easy for any group that overcomes the challenge of getting about 5 experienced wiki editors or an established organization to agree to a project.

I know those are not solutions to the problem, but I think that voice conversation and money are the most certain foundations to addressing the big problems. I know there is a wiki community taboo on looking at money but when judging the efficacy of outreach, I think budget transparency should be a norm. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I've gotten to the point where I'd feel comfortable talking about Wikipedia with someone, but I'm not quite sure I'd agree to a recorded public chat. Maybe someday in the future. That's the sort of step I could never quite take a step back from. I have a visible scar on my face, for one thing, which can make me more easily identifiable. Apart from that, I don't want to worry about potential real-life stalkers. I like to think that humanity as a whole is good, but some people take advantage of people's kindness and openness. But I like talking to people and I'd be willing to have a conversation with you. In regards to funding, I'm not quite so ambitious to ask anyone for money. This is like the very early stages of something that might be an idea to change things. Clovermoss (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Stalking is a real and valid concern. I and many other wiki editors who have done off-wiki organizing have been the subjects of doxxing and harassment. That is an unfortunate reality, and it is also unfortunate that as a community we have no way to track how often harassment happens or for delivering peer to peer victim support. A consequence of this is that people who do outreach tend to be people who have higher tolerance for off-wiki hostility. In your case if you want to privately chat about anything without recording, then I would talk to you. Information that I might be able to share could be about 1) wiki community organization in the meta:Wikimedia movement affiliates program 2) off-wiki institutional partnerships, like with meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network sponsors, or 3) Wikimedia Foundation grants at meta:start:grants. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: That sounds great. I still don't think I'd apply for funding, but it's likely a good idea to learn more about this stuff in general and what exactly the process for making larger changes might involve. For privately contacting me, you can email me through Special:Email if you want. I have an email address specifically for my Wikipedia activities.

My concerns mainly relate to being a younger person in general. I'm 19 (almost 20) now, but back when I started editing I was 16. So I'm used to being somewhat close-to-my-chest about anything that could be considered personal information, even if I've been less careful about that since I've become an adult. Publicly recorded chats are still a bit much for me, but maybe one day I'd be comfortable with it. It's nice to know that the concern at the back of my head isn't entirely wrong and comes from somewhere, at least. Clovermoss (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC), edited 20:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There are some news sites that require you to take a quiz before you can read their full articl. We could put up that barrier for Wikipedia readers. Show them an unsourced statement and a few web or other reference search results and ask them to choose one or none of the above. We can't use this information to directly improve the articles but it may give established editors a leg up. Or maybe not - a trial could tell us. Anyway, I agree with @North8000 that adding references is too far up the learning curve for most readers. If there's any chance of this type of crowdsourcing working, it has to be dumbed way down. ~Kvng (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That feels more intrusive than I would like it to be. The idea is for it to be voluntary but with increased awareness, not "do this or you can't read articles the way you want to." I was thinking something more along the lines of a banner (like the ones that ask people to donate if you're not logged in) that mentions that Wikipedia has x unsourced statements, we need people like you to fix them! That banner would have a link to a "start page" as suggested by North8000 to resources that could help them do that. I don't think that the process nessecarily has to be "dumbed down". I was able to figure out how to use citeweb at 16, maybe I'm an outlier but I have more confidence in the general ability of people who use the Internet on a frequent basis to attempt verification of unsourced statements. Clovermoss (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You are right, it doesn't need to be dumbed down. It just need instructions / navigation specialized to the task at hand. North8000 (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

So, regarding "anyone can edit" on a complexity/wiki-knowledge-required scale of "1" to "100" , the main text editing method had a difficulty level of "2" but to successfully deal with the other aspects of basic editing in Wikipedia you needed a level of "40". So, what was the plan? Make a dumbed down text editor that lowers the "2" to a "1" whereupon they immediately crash into the unchanged "40". North8000 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@North8000:

I don't think adding a reference is that hard on the wiki-knowledge required scale of 1 to 100. I was able to do so with no instructions on my 7th edit [18] (although I was wrong about removing inaccesible/dead URLs and could've cited more reliable sources but I replaced a MySpace blog one so that's better than nothing, I guess). Even without Visual Editor, Source Editor has the {{cite web}} template. It's fairly easy for anyone to learn how to fill that in. But there are instructions available for people who would find them helpful, such as the video linked above. Clovermoss (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, try a test. Take a friend who hasn't edited Wikipedia, point to an unsourced sentence and say "fix that" and don't tell them anything else. And see what happens. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: I could try to do this in real-life, but I'd need some time. I'll let you know what happens if I do. I will say that I've seen many IPs add references when prompted to do so and many editors take to editing skills faster than one might expect (see Miren Basaras, an article started by a new editor). I don't think the barrier to entry is so high that it's impossible, even if we have survivorship bias. Otherwise edit-a-thons would never be a thing. Clovermoss (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

But I also see that I kind of missed the overall point that you were trying to get across. We don't nessecarily need to convert everyone who adds a reference to being a long-term editor, I was just trying to make a point about how a greater volume of people doing a casual edit could make a substantial impact. We could also have something like tagged edits for newcomers who add a citation through whatever banner prompts them to do so, if this ever became a thing. There could be linked resources like a Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers and the Teahouse for people who want to get more involved. Clovermoss (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean by "tagged edits" [19]. If we ever did something like this that had an impact like this on a massive scale, this could help with minimizing the less helpful edits made and fix them. Clovermoss (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Step one in that test would be learning "what's wrong with the current state" after that the wiki-requirements for sourcing to fix it. And then figuring out and learning the current referencing scheme used at the article. (God help them if it's a 2 layer plan with sfns.) (or being confident enough to "violate" it.) and then what's going to steer them to the particular helpful tools that you describe? :-) North8000 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: I'm not talking articles that need more references in general, but snippets of text with citation needed next to them. I'm not suggesting people mess with the general structure of articles and try to figure out sfn from nowhere. God help anyone who tries. You can see examples of what I'm talking about at Wikipedia:Citation Hunt. I think a small, identifiable task like that with clear instructions is something that newbies can realistically do. Clovermoss (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If you had a "starting point" page for newbies for that particular task and something that would get them to it, that I think that it would be doable. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think even adding a bare <ref>url</ref> to an RS with no other formatting would be better than nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Unsourced material is worse than nothing at all. It has to be re-researched and completely rewritten. You cannot simply add references, because you cannot be sure it is not a copyright violation. If you're lucky, it will be, and a search engine match may then give you a source. But unsourced material always has to be thrown away. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I often check a stack of articles, based on a bot-driven thematic list of articles which have had maintenance tags added in the previous week. It is a mix of biographical, places, sport seasons, etc. My focus is on those with referencing issues, usually on the places, sometimes on some of the older biographies. Often the articles are longstanding stubs of the form <Blahtown> is a town on the River <Blah>. Its main industry was <whatever> which closed in 1950. Now it is a dormitory town for <Bigblah>., all unsourced. While it is right that someone has tagged it, it is often easily remedied by referencing without discarding the prior wordings, but even in their unsourced stub state I don't see these as "worse than nothing at all". It would be good to achieve durable engagement of the original editor, so that they build on their original contribution, see how it can be enhanced, and the Page Curation messages are a step in that direction. AllyD (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I wouldn't say it always have to thrown away, for reasons like AllyD have stated. I will say that this is an angle I didn't really consider. Copyright violations could definitely be an issue, but they can also be an issue in cited text (someone copy and pastes something, but adds a ref – that's still a copyright violation). It's definitely possible that people would search for the entire sentence itself, instead of key words that could verify the content. This could lead to issues with circular referencing if people cite Wikipedia mirrors. My method of searching also involves stuff like quotation marks for keywords in a search because Google will only show you results that have that text if you do that. You can also remove certain websites from search results for unreliable sources you don't want to see. But I don't think my approach is nessecarily the typical one. This is something to keep in mind and plan for.

I will say that Wikipedia has also been around awhile and there's plenty of resources that people could potentially learn from to see how it works. There's this video [20] that has been watched 270,000 times and is more accurate than a lot of the stuff I've seen about Wikipedia editing. But it goes it gives a brief overview of stuff like core content policies, vandalism, page protection, article tags, etc. I'm giving this as an example that people are capable of learning what we're about as a community, not that I'd point that them to that specifically. Clovermoss (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the concern regarding unacceptable uses of copyrighted material, the presence of citations is no guarantee that an editor hasn't copied another source that they haven't cited. Thus any suspect text ought to be evaluated, whether or not it is cited. isaacl (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think reader-to-editor ratio is as important as article-to-editor ratio. (More readers don't make the site's encyclopedia content harder to maintain, but more articles do.) I think targeted recruitment offers the best chance for success. Start with considering if anyone you know personally would be a suitable Wikipedia editor, and expand outwards to those who you might meet in relevant groups, associations, and the like. isaacl (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't nessecarily disagree with that. I think we should reach out to more people in general, especially experts. It doesn't have to be one option over another, we can do both. Maybe not everyone will stick around, but it'd fit in with our philosophy of "anyone can edit" and maybe more people would stay after getting a taste of it. We have millions of readers. The potential of a wider audience is something to at least consider imo. Our editorship base doesn't have to be drastically skewed like it is right now. Clovermoss (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Recruiting readers to become editors is a time-honoured practice on Wikipedia, from allowing non-logged in editing (which in spite of its potential pitfalls, eliminates the biggest barrier to someone making an edit), to encouraging the creation of links to non-existent articles, to the creation of stubs, to many of the components of the main page. I don't have an issue with looking for even more ways to appeal to readers. It is, though, a well we've gone to many times. I think we need to look for different pools of potential editors, and in places that can help maximize success. isaacl (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That's an interesting point. I still think that the potential impact of appealing to more readers is something that is worthwhile to focus on, but I don't doubt that it's something that's been attempted many times. I doubt I'd be much more successful. Hopefully I would be, but I might be biased in my optimism. Clovermoss (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that I imagine virtually every single editor started as a reader, and I assume unrecruited readers remain by the far the largest source of editors, I say more power to you and anyone else who wants to try to convert more readers. I'm just trying to think of a way to filter those readers into subsets that offer a higher chance of becoming successful Wikipedia editors, even if just for a short period of time. isaacl (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This is related to some of the ongoing issues about unsourced or poorly sourced pages. This is specifically about unsourced BLPs in draft space. Biographies of living persons in article space must be properly sourced. There is a special procedure, BLPPROD, for the deletion of unsourced BLPs from article space. There is also a guideline for AFC reviewers that a BLP must have footnotes (not just general references). However, I don't see a guideline that says that draft BLPs must have sources. At Miscellany for Deletion, unsourced draft BLPs are often deleted as unsourced BLPs. That is, there isn't a written guideline, but some of the editors at MFD treat the requirement for sourcing of draft BLPs as an unwritten guideline. I will comment that a draft BLP cannot be required to have references from the time it is created, because the references are usually added after the text is written, but a rule of reason can be used that a draft BLP that is not actively being edited should have references.

So I have two questions. First, should there be a guideline providing for the deletion of unsourced BLPs in draft space and user space? Second, should New Page reviewers be asked not to draftify unsourced BLPs? Unsourced articles should be draftified. That is the primary purpose of draftification. Should New Page reviewers be instructed that unsourced BLPs should be instead tagged for deletion, either via BLPPROD, which is what it is for, or via A7 when that is appropriate? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'm on the "just delete them" side. BLPs of all stripes collect people who edit with a POV like moths to a flame, so it's much better to get rid of any of them that don't have sources. A draft without any obvious promotion or negative information that's not sourced can probably stay as a draft if someone is working on it, but I'd cut the six month timer down to three months or one month before deletion. If there's an unsourced BLP in mainspace, just BLPPROD or A7. G10 for any page that is primarily unsourced or poorly sourced negative information should be fine too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:ScottishFinnishRadish Unsourced BLPs in draft space or user space are only deleted if they are sent to MFD. Are you recommending any other procedure to delete them?

You have answered my question about unsourced BLPs in article space. They can always be tagged for BLPPROD, and some of them can be tagged for A7 (or G10). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

As BLP applies to all pages, unsourced material should not remain in drafts. I don't think this is actual practice, at least for neutral/positive content.Slywriter (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The BLP policy states in particular that it also applies in user and user talk space. I think that a non-contentious addition should be made to add draft space. (The BLP policy precedes draft space, and an update is in order.) I agree that unsourced BLPs may be nominated for deletion at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this is all making a mountain out of a mole hill. Dozens of completely unsourced (likely autobiographical) drafts on wannabe actors, singers, social activists, etc are handled through g13 daily without any issue from waiting around 6 months. When you add userspace stuff to the mix that isn't marked for afc the daily creation rate probably doubles and those just sit around forever. It's been this way for years and the sky hasn't fallen. To cite just one example Shravangodaraosian is a completely unsourced BLP, but since it's not indexed I see little benefit to deleting. There's enough makework around here as is, any actually damaging examples are already covered by G3, G10, G11. Just not sure what problem we're trying to solve here. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies to all pages, per the BLP policy: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. with the footnote Manning naming dispute, 16 October 2013: "The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

No change to the policy is needed, it already says BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. IMO it should probably just state that BLP applies everywhere, no exceptions to stay concise, but that's not a change worth fighting over. The key is contentiousness, and with very few exceptions the draft and userspace stuff is not contentious. In the rare case a sentence or two is contentious they can always be removed. Attack pages and general vandalism can already be speedily deleted. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If I saw any unsourced or poorly sourced negative BLP in draftspace I would probably try a CSD for it. And as it stands, I think there's a six month wait after the last on draft articles before deletion, for BLPs I think lowering that wouldn't be a bad thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That would require a lot of extra work to triage drafts as either containing or not containing BLP information, and drafts may also grow to include some when they did not do so initially. Then you also have to consider that many userspace drafts are not tagged as such and the workload is even larger just to find them in the first place, not worth the bother IMO. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm tending to align with the IP; I think it would be difficult to generate a workable rule -- that is communicable to new editors -- that allows some wiggle room for absent sourcing while an editor is working on the draft. Robert McClenon, can you give a few examples of drafts that can't be deleted under either WP:G11 or WP:G10 that are causing a problem? Are we talking completely unsourced or sourced to unreliable sources such as Facebook or IMDb? Espresso Addict (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • User:Espresso Addict - I am not asking about any particular problematical drafts. I am asking from the standpoint of an editor at MFD, where really bad drafts go. Unsourced BLPs that get nominated for any reason get deleted as unsourced draft BLPs. A lot of drafts also get nominated for notability reasons, but notability does not apply to drafts, and the nominator may be told to stop ragpicking. I just want to be sure that we are in agreement on what should be deleted at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

    The question here is what precisely constitutes a "really bad" draft (in whatever namespace). I just clicked on Special:Random/Draft a bunch of times and ran across exactly one that was kind of okish, all the others were bad to varying degrees. And yes there were some unsourced BLPs in the mix, my last hit was Draft:Aminah Rahman, which is about the same quality as the userspace blp I linked to earlier. But despite the low quality I don't think that any of them need to be promptly deleted. So could you please provide an example of something either draft or userspace that is ineligible for CSD, but needs to be deleted at MFD. Because my initial thought is just to leave all of them alone unless someone is somehow gaming the system. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• We need to remember the purpose of Draftspace: to be a holding pen, where we can work on potential articles (drafts) and get them up to minimum standards before they go live. Thus, drafts do not need sources NOW… they need sources SOON (ie before they can be moved to MAINSPACE.) Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. If they have negative unsourced information in them, that information needs to be removed, or the article deleted. There is no wiggle room on that. Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• This, although I would emphasize the negative aspect (which is often forgotten when discussing BLP.) BLP calls for high-quality sources for anything related to living people, but the "delete it now, do not pass go, this overrides everything else" rules only apply to BLP-sensitive stuff, ie. things with the potential to harm the reputation of a living person. "X is an author who was born in year X and lives in state Y" should have a source eventually but does not require immediate deletion; "X is a neo-Nazi who..." obviously requires a citation or immediate deletion. So whether unsourced BLP drafts must be tagged for immediate deletion depends on the possibility of them harming their subject. --Aquillion (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that the rule is about unsourced matter that is "contentious, whether positive, negative, or neutral", without a focus on exclusively negative information. Among other benefits, that saves editors from arguing over whether "He's probably gay" is negative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• As Blueboar said, this misses the purpose of draft space. Draft space is intended to be a safe space to develop content which doesn't meet mainspace standards. That includes sources. It's fine for someone to write a draft article and not put the sources in on day one, and we shouldn't penalise that by deleting the draft. If the draft isn't worked on then it will be deleted after six months anyway under G13. Policy already allows for actual BLP violations to be removed in draft space. Drafts are not reader-facing and aren't indexed in search engines to the potential for harm is minimal. Hut 8.5 11:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Are we discussing the removal of specific (harmful) content, or the full deletion of the draft article? There is a difference. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Clarification needed for relevant foreign language names to clarify NCGN's policy on relevant foreign language names. You're welcome to give your thoughts. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)