Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Draft speedy deletion criteria (D#)

In order to help deal with getting rid of drafts that are pretty much never going to be approved no matter how much effort is expended on them, I am suggesting we adopt a new set of speedy criteria. These criteria would fall into a new general category, D# (for draft) and should apply only to pages actually in the draft namespace (userspace drafts falling under U# criteria). Here are the criteria I propose.

• D1: Business profile/cirriculum vitae drafts for which no reliable sources exist. This would apply to drafts that are written more like a business profile as one would see on Bloomberg or a cirriculum vitae, but are not so obviously promotional G11 applies. The sourcing requirement serves as both a WP:BEFORE check and as a bright line between "unsalvageable" and "Needs a lot of work but could be made acceptable."
• D2: Drafts about living people which would fail basic biographical requirements if they were articles and have remained unsourced for seven days. A large number of drafts we deal with in -en-help are of people who are not notable and whose articles have no sources and no chance of being sourced due to being virtually unknown. The seven-day requirement is for parity with WP:BLPPROD.
• D3: Drafts which have not been edited for six months. This would basically be renaming G13 to D3. Whether or not this is a good idea is dependent on how we want to treat userspace drafts. This should be refundable, as G13s are.
• D4: Drafts primarily written by undisclosed paid editors with no significant edits by other editors. Note that this criteria can, and should, be contestable at WP:Requests for undeletion provided the editor(s) disclose(s) and is unblocked. The key here is undisclosed; disclosure should instantly negate the criterion. We should not be making undisclosed paid editors' efforts at getting work anything but impossible.
• D5: Drafts that have been repeatedly resubmitted and declined/rejected (3+ times) without any significant work being done to improve them. At present a draft that has been constantly resubmitted without improvement is usually rejected and (often) sent to MfD where they get deleted; this would allow us to get rid of drafts whose writers aren't taking any criticism on board and are just blindly resubmitting in hopes of getting a credulous reviewer. The key here is repeatedly resubmitted and declined/rejected...without any significant work; a summary rejection as the first one or evidence the author(s) are trying to improve the draft should negate a D5.

Opinions? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• What problem is this trying to solve? Why is it necessary to delete these drafts before they are eligible for G13? Do you have evidence that MfD is overloaded? How is D4 compatible with editor privacy and with editors who are incorrectly accused of UPE (note that a speedy deletion criterion for UPE has been rejected multiple times previously)? How do you propose to make D1, D2 and D5 objective (they are not currently)? How is D2 compatible with WP:NODEADLINE, especially as the purpose of draft space is to allow articles to be developed over time without needing to meet all the sourcing requirements immediately? Do these proposals meet all the WP:NEWCSD requirements (note at least three of them fail the objectivity requirement as written)? Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• As per Thryduulf; also, you should not choose CSD codes until a criterion is approved for use. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Meh. If someone's proposing multiple new criteria at a time, it makes it easier to discuss them individually. —Cryptic 23:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• D2 is misplaced; it should be discussed instead at WT:BLPPROD. (As, as it happens, it already is.) —Cryptic 23:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• These are either unsuitable for speedy deletion or miss the point of draft space. Draft space is intended for articles which aren't up to scratch yet, the fact a draft is badly written or doesn't meet mainspace standards doesn't mean it should be deleted.
  • D1: "more like a business profile" isn't a very objective standard, and processes which require people to search for references should not be done through speedy deletion. Editors disagree about what constitutes a reliable source all the time. The fact that a draft is written like a business profile is also not a good reason to delete it in itself, as it's a content issue which could be addressed.
  • D2: if you really want to do that then it should be an expansion of BLP PROD, but as I said when this was proposed there it also misses the point of draft space. It's perfectly reasonable to start a draft without putting the references on straightaway. Drafts are vastly less visible than mainspace articles.
  • D3: this expands G13 to include userspace drafts which aren't AfC submissions, which is a huge expansion which goes against previous consensus.
  • D4: this is asking the reviewing admin to judge whether a draft was created by an undisclosed paid editor, which is difficult to judge accurately. Previous proposals to delete all content added by undisclosed paid editors haven't gained consensus so the fact that a draft was written by an undisclosed paid editor doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted.
  • D5: I don't think this is much of a problem. If someone stops working on a draft for six months then it will be deleted under G13 anyway. If they keep working on it then then the draft may come up to scratch. The fact that an AfC reviewer has declined something doesn't mean the draft is unviable, and deleting something after the third decline would be very harsh to the editor who worked on it as they would have any chance to address the third decline (they might not even see the reason before the draft gets deleted). There don't seem to be many cases like this at MfD.
• Hut 8.5 08:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with all of what Hut 8.5 says. The whole point of draft space is to avoid overzealous deletions that might otherwise happen in article space. Regards SoWhy 09:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think we need to consider this, and I am not sure that some of the objections are valid.
  • D1: the distinction should be whether there is any conceivable chance that the article might be improvable. For drafts meeting criteria D!, some of them are conceivable sourceable and notable, and I have even seen some which can be expanded into decent articles, eithe by the contributor of someone else. But some are so clearly not that we might want to have a deletion criterion of this sort. But unless we can devise clear-cut criteria for this, this is not something for speedy. If we do anything of the sort, it would need a time delay, and be refundable.
  • D2 is worth discussing. Quite a few of these are just names, and will remain so forever. But , as for D1, unless we can devise clear-cut criteria for this, this is not something for speedy. If we do anything of the sort, it would need a time delay, and be refundable. This could be either part of BLP PROD or as Draft -- there are existing speedy criteria with a time delay.
  • D3 I personally would include userspace drafts, but I do not think there is consensus. If we do establish a separate Draft section, there would be a point of moving G13 to it.
  • D4 Although previous proposals to delete all material by undeclared paid editors have not been approved, a great many of them are covered by provision G5, editing by previous blocked editors and their sockpuppets. This applies only to edits made after the principal or one of the sock accounts was blocked, but some admins have interpreted it more liberally, on the basis that this is an technical distinction (it is not just a technical artificial distinction, but a good and real one for people blocked for most other reasons) . I haven't done it, but some have, and I would not blame any who did.
  • D5. I think this is valuable and ought to be included, with some cautions. The primary caution as I see it is that about 10% of drafts are still being wrongly declined--for reasons of style or slightly inadequate sourcing or incompleteness that could be fixed in mainspace, and for which an article would never be deleted. (There's a much higher percentage of drafts being declined for the wrong reasons) There's some real benefits in doing this: repeated submission afddd to the backlog and the work, for those articles which in general simply aren;t worth the effort. It is extremely rare that someone after repeated declines will suddenly start wmaking sensible improbvements. I've seen it, but very seldom. However I would use a more restrictive level than the suggested criterion: 4 or more times, including declines by at least 2 different reviewers, and without any attempt to address the problem.
• I'm one of the very few people who try seriously to rescue drafts at G13. If something is not done to remove the large percentage of hopeless ones at an early stage, I am likely stop working in that area altogether. It's difficult to screen a large number with any degree of accuracy, and if my colleagues will not even indirectly assist, that's not something likely to encourage me to continue DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally support development here. NB. First preference is to delete draftspace and to tell new editors to edit mainspace before creating drafts. Newcomers should not be directed into AfC, but should be directed to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• D1. D1: Business profile/curriculum vitae drafts for which no reliable sources exist.

  Support but reword to "D1: Business profile/curriculum vitae drafts for which no independent reliable source is provided.

  This should be Sticky PROD style, 7 days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• D2. Support, BLPPROD should apply to drafts. In the meantime, send all unsourced BLPs straight to MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• D3. G13 -> D3. OK, no opposition. Assuming that this covers AfC drafts in userspace? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• D4. Oppose in favour of Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product. Many UPEs are socks of experienced editors. Deleting their work clears the slate for them to try again better. Rapid deletion prevents non-admins from joining the dots, and so it a losing strategy. Content-blanked archived UPE product titles will make it very easy to spot the next paid attempt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• D5. Oppose. Continue to send these to MfD. The numbers are not so great. Repeated declines often are cases of bad decline comments. Repeated Rejects are rare, which I attribute to the clarity of the Reject message. "Repeated" implies an active disagreement, and all active disagreements are worth an attempt at discussion. Often these are well held at MfD. Often they are better held at user_talk as a editor behavioural issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Why not blank? It seems that simply blanking such pages would solve the problem here, maybe with some kind of notice template. Then, after 6 months, the abandoned draft criteria kicks in. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Given that we appear to be !voting now, for the record I strongly oppose all the criteria as proposed (and at most of them in principal too). As this has been open a couple of weeks without any attempt by anybody to rectify any of the insurmountable problems identified with the proposals as written I'm not sure why this section hasn't been closed as a waste of everybody's time yet? Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  because people are continuing to comment and add suggestions . Since my posting just yesterday there have been two new ones, both worth considering. Dealing with drafts is a problem, and the way to fix it is not to give up on. it. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  As I noted out of band to SoWhy, this forum tends to the bold-oppose-support rather than lending itself to idea-level discussion. I do not think it fruitful to perpetuate the former and certainly do not think the latter should be chased away. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• D1, D2 and D5 are all good rationales for deletion. Anything fitting these can and should be nominated for deletion at WP:MfD. A large number of cases resulting in SNOW deletions per an objective rationale is probably well considered to be a pre-requisite for a D* WP:NEWCSD. MfD is not seeing a lot of these, so NEWCSD#3 ("frequent") is lacking evidence. D4 fails on multiple points. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think drafts such as Draft:Ajay Motkari, Draft:Azam Dahri, Draft:Hurais Khan, and Draft:Pqtrick are good cases for D2 or something similar. Otherwise, as I've said before, some will just abuse an unrelated criterion such as G2. Yeah, I could just take them to MfD, but they'll just say I'm a time-waster. To be honest, they might have a point, even if it has no basis in policy. It may nbot be a massive load on MfD, but it's still an unesccessary one; the conclusion of such discussions are foregone. That is exactly what CSD is meant for. Adam9007 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is it necessary (or even beneficial) to delete these before they are eligible for G13? What problem are they causing that speedy deletion is the best/only way to solve? Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Thryduulf, It adds unnecessary load to MfD. There's little point in having a deletion discussion about clearly non-notable autobios and the like; that's why we have criteria such as A7. Do we really have to wait 6 months for stuff that'll obviously never pass muster in a million years to be deleted just because it's in draftspace? G13 is meant for serious drafts that might actually one day stand a chance of being published, not stuff like Draft:Pradeep Kumar Singh. There's also the risk of BLP violations (that would be dealt with much more quickly in mainspace because we have things like A7 and BLPPROD) standing for up to 6 months. Adam9007 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
      • The whole purpose of draft space is to give users a reasonable time to work on an article without it needing to meet all the criteria for articles immediately. The consensus of the community is that "reasonable time" means 6 months. G13 is not "meant for serious drafts that might actually one day stand a chance of being published", indeed the opposite, it is intended for abandoned drafts that nobody is interested in. If there is a BLP issue then the following options are all available: (1) remove the part of the draft that is a BLP vio, (2) speedy delete it under G10, (3) nominate it at MfD (in all cases alert the WP:OVERSIGHT team if there is a serious issue that needs suppression). If there is no BLP issue then just ignore the draft and it will be gone in 6 months. There is no evidence that MfD is seeing so many nominations of drafts that a speedy criterion is required to take the pressure off - because drafts get deleted after 6 months routine nominations are just a waste of everybody's time. So I'll ask again, what is that actual problem that requires deletion sooner than G13 that needs speedy deletion to solve? As an aside what are your objective definitions of "clearly non-notable autobios and the like" and "serious drafts that might actually one day stand a chance of being published"? Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

        Thryduulf, I highly doubt that G13 was ever meant to prolong the existence of stuff that obviously has no place in an encyclopaedia. By 'clearly non-notable autobios and the like', I mean articles that basically amount to this: Joe Bloggs is a person. He likes this; he likes that; blah blah blah. Nothing to see here; move along. Like the ones I linked to above, which are exactly the sort of things A7 is meant for. If such a page were in draftspace, it wouldn't be incubated on sight, it'd be zapped on sight. Why should it hang around in draftspace for 6 months? Why should drafts be exempt from the same treatment just because they were created in draftspace first? By your logic, we should stick such articles in draftspace for 6 months and only then delete them. I'm guessing Wikipedia:ACTRIAL is the reason why there are now so many drafts that would be CSD-eligible if they were in article space. If so, it has actually been counterproductive in a way: because they're in draftspace, they can't be CSD'd under the current rules. However, the fact that they're being improperly CSD'd anyway under G2 or something else speaks volumes. And by 'serious drafts', I mean an actual, genuine attempt at an encyclopaedia article, as opposed to a load of waffle about something nobody cares about. Adam9007 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

        Once again, draftspace is explicitly intended for things that are not suitable for article space, that it contains pages like you comment means it is working as intended. You have still not explained why them being around for six months is actually a problem (other than you not liking them). Your definitions of what you want and don't want to see in draft space are not even close to objective (they are closer to "I know it when I see it"). If people are using G2 to delete pages like that then they need to stop immediately because they are abusing their admin tools in one of the most serious ways possible. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

        Thryduulf, Once again, draftspace is explicitly intended for things that are not suitable for article space We're talking about stuff that's not only unsuitable for article space, but unsuitable for Wikipedia whatsoever. I've just come across Draft:Andrea fortier. It was tagged as G2 because it was the creator's first edit. Had it been in mainspace, it would be A7'd and A1'd on sight, and rightly so (we do have WP:ATD-I for cases that aren't necessarily hopeless). If my experience is any indication, drafts like that are overwhelmingly deleted at MfD, usually well before G13 kicks in. Why? Because they're junk, and not at all worth keeping, even for the "grace period" afforded to drafts. Adam9007 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

        If there are no BLP, copyright or attack page issues then the only choices you have are (a) wait for G13, or (b) waste your and someone else's time. Literally every other action than ignoring it is pointless. These drafts, in draftspace, are harmless. There is a good reason why applying article space speedy deletion criteria to draft space is rejected every time it is proposed: the purpose of draft space is to allow a time and space for people to write articles that are not suitable for article space (yet). Whether they will ever be is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• The problem seems to be "drafts on hopeless topics" - that is, draft that no reasonable editor would ever see becoming notable any time in the near future, so it's pointless to continue. With that in mind, how about simply updating G13 to include "Drafts that have been rejected and not edited by a person for 30 days may be deleted under G13 as a soft deletion." The soft-deletion will cover the rare cases where some hopelessly non-notable topic becomes notable for some unforeseeable reason (e.g. in 2015, if someone would've written about some high school poet named Amanda Gorman, it would have been rightly rejected). It will also cover many cases of sock-puppetry when the page is not G5-eligible due to it being created before the first block or ban was issued. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'm going to have to echo Thryduulf's response to Adam above - what harm are these drafts doing sitting around? They aren't indexed, they will be deleted eventually, and if there are any PII issues they will already be handled under existing processes. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree, there's no good reason to delete drafts after one month instead of six months just because they've been rejected. The fact that someone rejected a draft doesn't even mean the draft is hopeless or non-notable, it's perfectly possible for an AfC reviewer to decline something saying "This is probably notable but you need to do XYZ". Hut 8.5 18:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Hopeless topics" per se are not a problem with being left in draftspace for months. Allowing quick deletion on the sole judgement of a single editor creates more problems than the none solved. What if that sole editor is wrong, or biased, or is biting? "Hopeless & harmless drafts" are what draftspace is for. If it is not "harmless", identify an objective problem, and nominate it at MfD. Many SNOW deletion discussions are important evidence in support of a NEWCSD. At the moment, I think there are two good cases for building evidence. One is something "obviously made up by the author", like CSD#A11 but in draftspace. The other is for BLPPROD in draftspace, an "unsourced BLP". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose D2 as written. We have hundreds of drafts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices with rudimentary information. These individuals are inherently notable, and a handful of them may be still-living people, but for the most part, the drafts are currently unsourced. They are steadily being worked through, but at a pace that will take another year or more to complete. There is no good reason to delete these in their current state, as they contain no contentious information. BD2412 T 01:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a very good point, even if most of them aren't living people. This is a good reason to send things through XfD for an extended period, so as to gather information on what sort of things could be caught. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    • However, it muddies the waters for the lots of made up stuff about other people, in draftspace. I think the lists of missing judges and justices belong better as subpages of the WikiProject, where, if there are any questions, the WikiProject can be assumed to be responsible for irresponsible pages amongst them. Also on these drafts, their names surely came from some source, why not add that source to each draft? At least, for sure, for biographies of living people, which again most of your drafts are not. At mfd, I continue to believe that “unsourced BLP” is a good reason for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge U1 with G7?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apparently, U1 is like G7 because user subpages and userpages are mostly created by it's current user, and basically, it's like when you create your own user page or your own user subpage and then request a deletion, this would be like G7. G7 deletion reason reads "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page", while U1 reads "User request to delete pages in own userspace". Both of these speedy deletion reasons are similar to each other. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• There are too many cases where WP:U1 applies but WP:G7 does not to not have both covered by CSD criteria. I don't see how they can be merged without some awkward construction, like "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page, or page in requestor's userspace" which means pretty much the same as the existing, more logical, separate criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• This has been discussed and rejected before. While in some circumstances there is overlap there are far more cases where there is not - only when one criterion is identical to or (almost) wholly a subset of another is duplication problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Seventyfiveyears: Did you look at the archives of this page? Merging U1 with G7 is often suggested (but never by a regular of this page), and always rejected. See for example Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 78#Merge of criteria U1, U2, and U5 from seven months ago. @(regulars here): Should we have something like WP:PEREN for this kind of proposal? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes you think anyone would read it? Plugging the literal title of this section into the big honking search box already at the top of this page finds numerous previous discussions, including three of the first four hits. —Cryptic 23:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If you want to compile a PEREN style list then please go ahead. I doubt it will reduce the number of proposals (given how few people seem to pay attention to the existing big yellow box) but it will be a useful list to point people to after the proposal is made. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:CSD#U1 covers things that G7 doesn't, where others have edited their user pages. CSD#U1 is important as a clear statement that every user is responsible for every page they keep in their userspace. There may be a small issue of U1 deletions of userfied pages, but that is a problem for userfications, userfication of any page carries the implication that the user may have it deleted at any time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove "Unambiguous" from G11?

I think it's time we got rid of "Unambiguous", and let it simply read: "Advertising or promotion". It's more in line with common practice. My reading of G11, as well as the essay Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising gives me the (apparently mistaken) impression that G11 is exclusively about the language or tone of the page, not who wrote it. Draft:Messiah DuPont seems to have been G11'd simply because it's an autobio (it's worth noting that when I last checked, creating autobios wasn't actually prohibited, only discouraged; there's a difference), not because the language was promotional (because it wasn't). Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kauser Konok proves (as if more proof was needed) that "unambiguous" is purely subjective (at the time of this writing, there are two editors who are saying basically: "How the hell is this G11", and another two (possibly three) saying the exact opposite), in direct contradiction to WP:NEWCSD#1 (or does that only apply to newly proposed criteria and not existing ones?). I'd also suggest that we remove the neutral point of view clause, but I see that was rejected a year ago (edit: and I see that I actually opposed that at the time, lol). That said, I'd be in favour of expanding G11 to state that other factors besides language may be taken into consideration in determining whether something's advertising. This would also make it easier to remove the flood of fake "drafts" that obviously have no hope of ever becoming articles (like the two I've linked to here). Thoughts? Adam9007 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

While your suggestion does have some merit, removing "unambiguous" may not be necessary, as the who wrote it and other clear indications of motivation can contribute to the the judgment that the page is "unambiguous advertising." Here's an example: If a run of the mill non-notable person wrote what amounts to a "notwebhost" draft, that's enough of an "ambiguity" to avoid G11, or at least make the case for G11 weak (case in point from earlier today: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Davit ratiani). On the other hand, if a person who, based on on- or off-wiki evidence, was seeking self-promotion or had a good reason to do so (say, to boost his career), then nearly-identical text would cross over the line to be "unambiguously promotional", at least in my mind. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That's why I said we could expand G11 to make that clear. Adam9007 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So the argument boils down to "people keep violating policy, so let's change the policy"? We already tell people with a COI to create a draft instead of an article. Shouldn't we instead try to keep G11 out of draft space as much as possible to keep these people confined to that area where their promotion won't appear outside the project? I have to ask again: What exactly is the problem with waiting for these drafts to be eligible for G13? Instead of considering to expand G11, shouldn't we instead make a rule that you should not nominate any draft for deletion that is not actively harmful? All the hours spent on these MFDs for such drafts could really be used much more efficiently, like reviewing the backlog of drafts. Regards SoWhy 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

people keep violating policy, so let's change the policy Policy should reflect common practice, not vice versa. We cannot force editors to abide by policy, and if a practice becomes common enough and, it's arguably unofficial policy anyway (I'm not saying I agree with it; I'm just saying that's how it is). All the hours spent on these MFDs for such drafts could really be used much more efficiently, like reviewing the backlog of drafts That is precisely why drafts that obviously haven't a snowball's chance in hell should be speediable, but the current letter of CSD policy suggests they can't be, even though they are sometimes speedied anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

But that is the problem, isn't it? Saying there are drafts that haven't a snowball's chance in hell requires at minimum two editors to make that assessment, wasting these editors time. If we exempt them from speedy deletion as Thryduulf suggests below, these editors could focus their time on something else and those drafts, snowy or not, will be deleted via G13 in due time anyway. The real question is, how does the project benefit from more people spending time on speedy tagging and MFDs for drafts? Regards SoWhy 08:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Filtering through the shit in draft space takes more cumulative editor effort than the cumulative editor effort it would take to CSD the shit. For every 2 editors looking at 1 shit draft to CSD it, 10 have looked at it to see if it is of any value. --Izno (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Then what you need is to change the work flow so that you aren't duplicating effort. The solution to wasting time is not to waste more time and bite newbies. Thryduulf (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

NB I'm not arguing for/against this proposal.

you need is to change the work flow Would you like to make a useful suggestion as to how to change the workflow, or are you just going to throw ideal words at the problem as if that will make the problem go away? Have you actually done any meaningful work in draft space? How was it? What tools did you use that made it easier to not cover the same shit twice by multiple people? --Izno (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

How about a bot adds a template or category to all drafts, saying this is unreviewed. When an editor takes a look they adjust the category to say that they've looked at it (giving it some sort of rating at the same time). A bot monitors the changes to pages in that category and if there are significant changes (to be defined what "significant" means) then the bot flags it for review. When a human reviews it they remove the flag and either adjust the rating or not as they see fit. It should be possible that each of these actions by a human requires only a single click (options to speedy delete it is G5, G10 or G12 with the same single click . Hey presto, no unnecessary duplication of effort. This is probably not perfect, but if I can come up with something that probably solves the problems with about 5 minutes thought then better minds than mine can surely do it with a bit longer to think about it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• There seem to be two distinct proposals here: removing the word "unambiguous" from G11, and allowing G11 when the text is not promotional based on factors other than the text. Removing "unambiguous" by itself wouldn't allow non-text factors to be taken into consideration. In theory it wouldn't have much effect at all, given that all the criteria are only supposed to apply "in the most obvious cases". However I don't think it's a good idea to allow "factors besides language" for G11, because those would not be objective standards. While all the criteria have an element of judgement, determining whether something is promotionally worded can be done fairly objectively. Criteria based on why we think the author wrote the page, by contrast, are not objective at all. We can't read other peoples' minds and any attempt to do so will involve a large dose of guesswork. The fact that policy was misapplied in a few cases is not a good reason to change it, and if people are arguing over whether something is "unambiguous" then it probably isn't. Hut 8.5 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • However I don't think it's a good idea to allow "factors besides language" for G11, because those would not be objective standards. Criteria based on why we think the author wrote the page, by contrast, are not objective at all. But "unambiguous" is objective? How's "unambiguous" defined? As evidenced by the above MfD (as well as who knows how many other disputes), the definition of "unambiguous" depends entirely on whom one asks. That way, way too much of an element of judgement for any reasonable person to describe as objective. Also, there are many who I have no doubt would say that allowing non-text factors to be taken into consideration is well within the spirit of G11. Adam9007 (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    • All the criteria have some sort of judgement involved and reasonable people can disagree about whether some cases qualify for each of the criteria, all we can do is keep the criteria reasonably objective. And yes I agree that "unambiguous" is reasonably objective. If a bunch of experienced editors are arguing about whether something is unambiguous or not then it pretty clearly isn't. Given that the motivation for proposing this is to delete more drafts, I have to agree with the other commenters here that combing through drafts to find ones which can be deleted before the G13 clock is a waste of time and people should be discouraged from doing that, aside from copyright violations and BLP violations. Hut 8.5 08:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree that "unambiguous" is reasonably objective I don't; as evidenced above, what's NPOV to some may be "unambiguous advertising" to others (yes, differences of opinion are sometimes that extreme). I think considerably more of us can agree on what constitutes "advertising" than on what constitutes "unambiguous advertising". Adam9007 (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
        • That would very significantly broaden the meaning, which is the exact opposite of what needs to happen as it is already being used to delete pages that are not exclusively promotional. If "unambiguous" is really being interpreted that differently in good then we need to find some other way to convey the intention that it only be used for pages where removing all the promotional wording would leave a blank page. If you can reword it and arrive at an article that is not exclusively promotional then it does not meet the criterion, even if that means most sentences need to be reworded. It's also worth reiterating that the intent (proven, suspected, inferred, whatever) of the author is completely irrelevant. If there is any doubt that a page meets the criterion it must not be speedily deleted - anything else is an abuse of admin rights. If it is not possible to get this across in language reasonable admins can agree on then we need to repeal the criterion. It is infinitely better for the encyclopaedia that we speedily delete too little than too much. Thryduulf (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

          It is infinitely better for the encyclopaedia that we speedily delete too little than too much I suspect that a lot of users don't understand that the reason the speedy deletion criteria are so strict is so that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, there are those who'd probably say that some bathwater needs to be thrown out so badly that it's worth risking throwing the baby out with it. This is why I think it's highly unlikely G11 will ever be repealed, even if we can't agree on what it's supposed to mean. That said, I still think "unambiguous" is too subjective. Adam9007 (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

          You think "unambiguous" is too subjective, pretty much everyone else thinks removing it will make the criteria too broad, so you need to come up with some other suggestion for alternative wording that makes the criteria at least as strict as it currently is. What is it? Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

          Thryduulf, You're asking me to come up with a synonym of "unambiguous" that isn't unambiguous? Perhaps the word "indisputable" would make it clearer that if it can be or has been disputed, the criterion doesn't apply? The fact that some are saying Kauser Konok is unambiguous even though that's been disputed, to me at least, makes it clear that the spirit of the wording isn't being followed. Adam9007 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with Hut 8.5, with the exception of putting his last comment even more strongly - if there any good faith doubt or dispute about whether a speedy deletion criterion applies then, by definition, it does not. I also agree with SoWhy's comments about why people are wasting their and other's time nominating these drafts for CSD and/or MfD. If a draft does not pose any immediate harm to the encyclopaedia (and BLP or copyright issues are really the only time they can) then the only things worth your time are either improving it or ignoring it. Indeed it might actually be rather helpful for the encyclopaedia as a whole if we exempted draft space from all speedy deletion other than G5, G7, G8, G9, G10, G12 and G13 with explicit instructions not to nominate drafts at MfD other than in truly exceptional cases. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• • While I agree with you myself in principle, Thryduulf, at least on the applicability of CSDs, DRV has constantly reaffirmed A7s where commenting editors said they wouldn’t have A7’d it, the creating editor asked for it I deleted / sent to AfD, yet editors (who themselves say they wouldn’t A7) decide to endorse as being valid admin judgement on what could plausibly be A7 (a nonsensical approach in my eyes, but it happens successfully nevertheless). So it appears we may be in the minority here, or that there’s enough of a problem with speedy deletion that what should be the common practice determined by consensus isn’t actually being done in our deletion processes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support breaking it into two halves:

(a) Unambiguous advertising or promotion, even if well sourced; or

(b) Advertising or promotion, including native advertising, if the page and its history contains no independent sources.

I think (b) type promotion has become common with the abundance if unskilled paid editors.

However, I think (b) would be more palatable, and in general "better", if it were a stickyPROD. If PRODded, it has 7 days to add a reliable independent source. This should apply to drafts. No acceptable promotion-liable article is based on zero independent sources. Promotion-liable articles are companies, their products and their CEOs. Zero independent sources means they can never pass WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Zero independent sources means they can never pass WP:CORP No it doesn't; notability is about the existence of such sources, not whether they're used in the article. Adam9007 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes it does, "exists", or "can be found" was implied with "StickyPROD". If it can be found, the author should add it. They have seven days. The onus should be on the author for a promotional unsourced topic. If the source cannot be found by the author, then isn't there a bigger question: What were they doing? Making it up? Writing first hand knowledge. WP:V failure. That's an even better reason to delete. What if they were using a silent unreliable or non-independent source? That's also a reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• The whole purpose of draftspace is that people have unlimited time to write an article without it needing to meet the requirements for being in mainspace by any particular arbitrary deadline, as long as they make at least one edit every six months. Something like this might be OK if you are prepared to teach every editor whose work is prodded the details Wikipedia policy, including the nuances of what is and isn't a reliable source. And by "teach" I don't mean throw links full of jargon at them, I mean explain it to them so they understand. If you are not prepared to do that then just wait for G13. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, The whole purpose of draftspace is that people have unlimited time to write an article without it needing to meet the requirements for being in mainspace by any particular arbitrary deadline The G11ing of Draft:Krozover seems contradictory to the purpose of draftspace; what concerns me is that WP:RS, WP:COI, and WP:Notability were cited. Yes, they're valid concerns, but they're nowt to do with whether a page is written promotionally, nor do they seem sufficient justification for deleting a draft at all, let alone speeding one. This has me wondering if this discussion and/or the one below should be made into an RfC, because I don't think it'll matter one jot what is said here if it's not; nothing will change (at least in the long-term) and it'll only be a matter of time before we have yet another discussion like this one. Adam9007 (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Exclude draftspace pages from some G criteria

Based on the discussions above, and other previous discussions here about speedy deleting pages in draftspace it is clear that many editors are wasting their and others time by nominating drafts for speedy deletion and/or MfD (before they are eligible for G13) contrary to the purpose of draft space. There is also some evidence of speedy deletion criteria being misused to delete some drafts in such circumstances. It is outwith the scope of this page to deal with the MfD issue, but we can reduce the number of pointless and/or incorrect speedy deletions. Accordingly, I wonder about adding "This criterion does not apply to pages in the Draft or Draft talk: namespaces" to the following criteria:

• G1 (patent nonsense - this should just be ignored)
• G2 (test pages - testing is a valid use of draft space, speedy deleting such tests may discourage new editors and there is also some evidence presented of this criterion being used to delete what are clearly intended to be encyclopaedia articles)
• G4 (recreations of deleted pages - working on a new draft for a page that was previously deleted is a valid use of draft space)
• G11 (unambiguous promotion - pages in draft space may be worked on to be less promotional, are not indexed and will be deleted by G13 after 6 months of inactivity. Previous discussions suggest this is the most misused criterion in draftspace).
• G14 (unnecessary disambiguation pages - such pages may be being drafted because another draft will mean a currently unambiguous title will become ambiguous when the draft is published).

I am unsure about whether G3 (vandalism and hoaxes) and G6 (technical deletions) should be excluded - on the one hand there might be valid uses, on the otherhand there is much potential for them to be abused to speedy delete pages now excluded from other criteria..

I am explicitly not suggesting drafts should excluded from G5 (creations by banned editors, G10 (attack pages) or G12 (copyright violations), as pages meeting these criteria should be speedily deleted..

This is a discussion not a vote so please do not add bold !votes (for or against) the idea. If there is support for the idea in general then it will likely need an RFC, but I expect tweaks will be needed before then at minimum. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about these:

• G1 and G2: drafts aren't supposed to be sandboxes, they should be for attempts to write encyclopedia articles. Genuine tests or patent nonsense don't have any place in draft space.
• G4: a draft which recreates an article previously deleted at AfD is a valid use of draft space, but that wouldn't qualify for G4 anyway. On the other hand if a draft is deleted at MfD then recreations of that draft could be reasonable G4 deletions.
• G11: spam is definitely less harmful in draft space than in mainspace, and I personally apply a higher standard when considering G11 deletions in draft space than I would in mainspace. I'd be happy to see something on those lines written into the policy. However spam in draft space can still be harmful and I think we should allow some G11 deletions in draft space.
• G14: fair enough, I'd support adding that one.

Hut 8.5 18:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• G1 - Won't change much; true nonsense will probably just be deleted under G3 instead.
• G2 - What's wrong with Draft:Sandbox and the other sandboxes? That's what they're there for.
• G4 - I assume your proposed exclusion excludes MfD-deleted drafts?
• G11 - This could lead to mass spamming of draftspace that we can't quickly get rid of.

Adam9007 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This could lead to mass spamming of draftspace that we can't quickly get rid of. Even if, who says we need to quickly get rid of it? Those pages are not indexed and no one outside Wikipedia will see them unless they have a direct link, making them essentially useless for real spam purposes. In fact, not deleting them immediately might be more helpful in the long run. If a UPE/COI editor sees their draft deleted, they might well create more drafts using different accounts or try to directly place their spam in mainspace. If they believe it will be reviewed someday, they might just wait and G13 will handle it at a time they no longer actively monitor the draft. Regards SoWhy 11:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• G11 is used a lot on drafts, I believe. Now, generally crap in the draftspace isn’t hurting anyone (WMF hasn’t complained about the disk space). However, some pages are obvious autobiographical nonsense by SPAs, and worded as such, and never going to make it into main space. The issue with these is it clogs up AfC cats (like “eligible for G13 soon”). If the cat is clogged up with crap, it makes it harder to find the gems which should be saved from G13 (and many good drafts are unfortunately G13’d, and obviously will never be refunded).
• I think the bigger issue is MfDs for drafts. They’re a waste of time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with that but I'm not sure how to solve it, and certainly this is not the place to solve it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also, {{db-spam}} (G11) is often used for spambots. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Regarding G4 and MfD, that's fair. I think the best way to solve that would be to still exclude G4 from applying in draftspace but have a separate criterion, D1 maybe, with similar wording but which only applies to draftspace pages that are recreations of drafts deleted at MfD. The other option would be to do with with a two-clause G4 (clause 1 everything except draftspace, clause 2 draftspace) but my preference is always for a longer list of simple criteria over a shorter list of complicated ones. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• G4 already excludes "content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement". That covers draftified versions of mainspace articles deleted at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  It doesn't however cover drafts written afresh without being moved from anywhere and which have not been explicitly authorised by AfD/DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you'd find it very hard to justify deleting one of those under G4, as a draft is not substantially similar to a mainspace article, and since the article has been rewritten it probably wouldn't qualify anyway. I do remember taking part in a DRV discussion about a case where an admin deleted a draft under G4 on the grounds that an article on the same topic was deleted at AfD, and the discussion was overwhelmingly of the view that this was a bad deletion under the existing policy. If you do want to change the wording of this exemption to make it stronger then OK, but a separate criterion is overkill. Hut 8.5 20:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• G11 hmm, I think the answer here would again be to exclude G11 from draftspace and add a new draftspace only criterion (D2 for the sake of discussion) with much stricter requirements codified. G1/G2 I'm still thinking about. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• G1/G2: Draft space is not a general sandbox. Draft:Asdf has been speedily deleted a couple of times, but usually not soon after creation. Draft:Test is create protected, which is a bit sad: seems like the perfect title where you could test page creation, but that only works if the page is regularly deleted. I don't see how keeping nonsense pages or test pages around for six months saves time: that is only true if nobody ever looks at them. Every time someone clicks on a nonsense page to check whether it can be salvaged, they are wasting time that could be saved by a timely speedy deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 22:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Modification of F7

Remove "a. Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately." from criteria F7

This criterion allows files to be deleted simply because they have an incorrect non-free fair use template, it takes a matter of seconds to just replace it with the correct template. It doesn't make sense that an otherwise appropriate file would be deleted because the uploader put the wrong template, something which may WP:BITE new users, and if there are other issues which actually concern the file itself, such as its fair use rationale, these should be addressed instead. Files with no fair use tag can be deleted after seven days, but a file with an incorrect tag can be deleted immediately, that seems a bit weird. I would propose removing this or converting to delayed speedy deletion, but I can't see a situation where a file would be deleted solely due to this, so this seems redundant to me. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Tweaked the header, as it's huge. No content change otherwise. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there are actually multiple situations here.

1. The fair use rationale provided by the template is invalid, but it is clear that a different fair use claim would be valid. These should just be corrected.
2. The fair use rationale provided by the template is clearly not correct, but it is not clear whether a different fair use claim would be valid and/or it's not clear what that claim would be. These files need to be discussed.
3. The fair use rationale provided by the template is clearly irrelevant and it is also clear that there is no alternative fair use rationale that could be valid. Speedy deletion seems appropriate here.

The intent of the criterion is that it applies only to situation 3, but I agree the language could be tightened. I don't immediately have any good ideas how to do that though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thryduulf. To clarify, this criterion refers to the tag below the fair use rationale, the tag below is not a fair use rationale, e.g., this speedy deletion criterion is referring to {{Non-free album cover}}, not {{Non-free use rationale album cover}}. And it is not feasible that situations 2 and 3 would happen, because if there is none applicable, you just use {{Non-free fair use}}. Either 1. Use an applicable template from Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates, 2. Use {{Non-free fair use}} if none are applicable. There is no reason for this speedy deletion criterion to exist, and it makes less sense the more I think about it. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 02:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

{{Db-badfairuse-notice}} even says the same thing

... because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, ...

This is in addition to the fact that this notice is in itself quite confusing and misleading, specifically or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria, files cannot be speedy deleted immediately due to the fact that it fails a part of the non-free content criterion. As said in WP:F7, Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{subst:Dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added. and Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with {{subst:Rfu}} may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability. If the replaceability is disputed, the nominator should not be the one deleting the image. These are delayed speedy deletions, not immediate, so this notice is actually incorrect in the fact that it is notifying the uploader for an immediate speedy deletion, not a delayed speedy deletion. The notice also says If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines ... This also misleading because the tag does not explain why a file can be used under fair use, it simply specifies the license, the type of file, and acts as a disclaimer, a separate fair use rationale is still required. Additionally, if you tag an image because it is from a commercial source and it is not the subject of sourced commentary, the talk page notice explains the A. criterion of WP:F7, and explains absolutely nothing about the B. criterion. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 01:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps adding "that cannot be repaired" after the parens might make it clearer that it only applies when the tag cannot be fixed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, but would that ever happen? There are 82 non-free tags in Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates, and {{Non-free fair use}} if none are applicable for whatever reason. AFAIK there's no issue with using the general Non-free fair use tag, so that would result in no files ever being deleted for this reason because they would all be trivial to fix. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 11:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd otherwise suggest that the wording be changed to refer to the fair use rationale template e.g., using {{Non-free use rationale software cover}} on a biographical picture, instead of the fair use licensing tag. As I've said above, the fair use tag is just a static template which does not even take any parameters apart from whether the file has a rationale (so that it can hide the instructions to the uploader). The fair use rationale may still have other problems and is not as trivial to fix as simply copypasting a template. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It also appears that only a handful of files are deleted under this criterion. In 2020, 107 files were speedily deleted as F7 according to quarry:query/52087, 85 of those 107 were by Whpq and 8 of those 85 files were nominated under this criterion as having an invalid fair use tag according to their CSD logs. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 01:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As one of the few admins that answer F7 nominations, I note that files are basically never deleted for this reason. Swapping out an inappropriate fair use tag is a very simple thing to do. -FASTILY 03:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• The policy does say at the start that people should consider whether a page can be improved before nominating it for speedy deletion. This applies to all the criteria, not just F7. Hut 8.5 12:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Misuse of G2 in draftspace

Exactly what is covered by G2? Should A3 be expended to include drafts or be merged into G2? Adam9007 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Not to derail the above discussion about making drafts exempt from certain criteria (including G2), but I have just been as good as told that it's common practice to speedy-delete drafts that would be A3s as articles under G2. The same goes for drafts that would be obvious A7s as articles. This is not the first time I've raised this issue, so this is definitely something that needs addressing. Adam9007 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Don't delete them since that's the whole point of draft space in the first place. If there's a problem with big backlogs, just throw a template on them that says that they need a lot of work to be suitable, which would also remove them from the backlog categories. After that, wait for the eventual G13. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this has been proposed before, and I'm sure there are plenty of discussions about it in the archives. It completely misses the point of draft space. The idea of drafts is that you can work on content without having to bring it up to mainspace standards straightaway to avoid deletion. Deleting drafts just because they're short is therefore counterproductive. The same goes for deleting drafts which don't indicate the subject is significant. Nor would there be any particular value to the encyclopedia from doing so, as the draft would be deleted under G13 if not worked on anyway. A3 and G2 are completely separate concepts, it's entirely possible for an article to have no meaningful content without being a test page, or for a test page to have meaningful content. Hut 8.5 19:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Hut 8.5, That doesn't address the improper G2ing of such drafts. The two cases which prompted me to start this discussion are Draft:Paul Davidhizar and Draft:Nathuram verma, and there are a further 7 linked to on my talk page discussion I linked to. If G2 and A3 really are discrete (and I'm not saying they're not), why are pages that would be A3s in article space being tagged and even deleted under G2? Adam9007 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  For a start the fact some people aren't abiding by a policy isn't a good reason to change the policy. But quite a few of the examples linked to from your talk page are genuine editing tests in draft space, for which it is appropriate to use G2. This one, for example, consisted of one line of someone mashing a keyboard followed by random bits of markup. It's clearly someone experimenting with how the editing interface works and is therefore a test page. A few others seem to be experiments trying to find out how infoboxes work, or people writing their own name which may well be them testing how the editing interface works. The key point is that they weren't just short, they had content which indicated that the author was testing. Hut 8.5 20:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Hut 8.5, I can't see those pages, but I was told they were empty. Pages with infoboxes or any sort of content are not empty. For a start the fact some people aren't abiding by a policy isn't a good reason to change the policy There are those who'd say that if a mistake becomes common enough, it's no longer a mistake. I'm not saying I agree with that (because I don't); I'm just saying that's what some people believe. Adam9007 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Two of them had no content other than the AfC template (Draft:Kandar Lutung and Draft:Puqlive). The others had some sort of content. Draft:Rihansh Singhania and Draft:Faizan NooRi contained broken attempts to write infoboxes. The latter also had some text but it makes no sense to me whatsoever. Draft:Yoosuf Ramzeen read "Name- Yoosuf Ramzeen Date Of Birth- [date]". Draft:Prashant sandela read "I am prashant sandela. i born in [date]". I don't think the ones with just the AfC template were valid G2s but the others aren't much of a stretch. Hut 8.5 20:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Hut 8.5,

  • no content other than the AfC template - would be A3'd in article space.
  • Name- Yoosuf Ramzeen Date Of Birth- [date] - would be A7'd in article space.
  • I am prashant sandela. i born in [date] - would be A7'd in article space.

  Without actually seeing the others, I can't comment on them (though if they were genuine attempts to write content (even if it's just an infobox) they weren't tests).

  If it wouldn't be G2'd in article space, I see no reason why it should be G2'd in draft space. Adam9007 (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Here's how I see the G2 problem. WP:GCSD states that the G criteria apply to every type of page with exclusions listed for specific criteria, and so apply to articles, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc. Read the specifics for each criterion to see where and how they apply. and WP:CSD#G2. Test pages says, in full, This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself. It does not apply to pages in the user namespace. It does not apply to valid but unused or duplicate templates. Note that there is a specific exemption for User space, but there is no similar exemption for Draft space. So those who use G2 for draftspace drafts are, technically, not in the wrong. Perhaps we need to alter the third sentence to read It does not apply to pages in either the user namespace or in the draft namespace. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Redrose64, No-one here is questioning whether G2 should be used for drafts. The problem is that G2 seems to be being misused as a catch-all for drafts that would meet an 'A' criterion if it were an article (by the way, there's a discussion above about exempting drafts from certain criteria, including G2). Adam9007 (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose extending A3 to draftspace, and continue to oppose the misuse of G2 in draftspace. G2 must be used only for pages that are genuinely tests, not article drafts that one editor thinks are below some arbitrary quality threshold. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps we should add some language like "this does not apply to pages intended to be articles or drafts of articles, regardless of quality or likelihood of surviving a deletion discussion."? Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, this does not apply to pages intended to be articles or drafts of articles That won't work I'm afraid; most people would say that the pages in draftspace being speedied (rightly or wrongly) under G2 do not fit that description, and are the sorts of pages that others have tried and failed to gain consensus for a new criterion for. Adam9007 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Speedy deleting a page when there is explicit consensus that type of page should not be speedily deleted is an abuse of admin tools and anybody doing that needs a speedy trip to WP:ANI. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, But is there an explicit consensus that blank drafts and drafts that would easily be A7s as articles should not be speedy-deleted? The fact that empty drafts are almost routinely being speedy-deleted suggests otherwise, even though A3 theoretically only applies to articles. It seems that there's no consensus on exactly what does and does not constitute a test page. This should be clarified. Failing that, G2 should be rescinded as too subjective. Adam9007 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  G2 should absolutely be clarified. See for example Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Andrea fortier, where due to my assumption that G2 is closer to what's commonly called a "test edit", I had assumed that a draft created with what seems to be no intent on making it an "article" that it would be considered a test page. For reference, the draft's content was something along the lines of "[Some Person] is shaggy and very sexy". Perryprog (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Perryprog, So far, the only real clarification we have is WP:Identifying test edits, which is only an essay. And I think that's more to do with edits to pages than pages created for testing purposes. Adam9007 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Right—my point was I had assumed the wording of "test page" was meant to be an inclusion of what's traditionally considered a "test edit", hence the need to be clarified. Perryprog (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  I've just been threatened with a block for removing improper CSD tags on blank drafts, proving my point entirely. Adam9007 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

G13 deletionism

The idea that any draft that has not been edited in six months is automatically eligible for deletion is patently ridiculous. I thought Wikipedia was about creating content, not just deleting it because nobody has worked on it for a while. G13 should stop immediately. Alternatively, I will be making edits to all old drafts to ensure they are not deleted and remain around for users to work on. 2A01:4C8:496:B51F:647D:63A1:E2F7:FFE0 (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Despite my deletionist tendencies, I am in full agreement with this. I find G13s to be counterproductive and damaging. I cannot tell you how many times I have been actively editing (in general) and have had a draft I wasn't prepared to send to mainspace but was taking my time gathering sources/energy to edit the content, only to receive a G13 notification and have the draft deleted within minutes of the tag placement. I can't imagine for editors who don't edit often how frustrating it is. CUPIDICAE💕 13:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a use for G13. There are quite a few drafts out there that are simply never going to be worthy of an article, yet there isn't any specific reason to delete them immediately. I do believe, however, any draft that has had a modicum of work put into it shouldn't be G13'd (as in, there's a chance the topic itself is worthy of inclusion as an article). See also here, which I occasionally go through and sort by smallest first to look for clearly "hopeless" drafts.

I suppose my point is: I really don't think G13-ing drafts that even have a small potential of becoming an article is worthwhile. Perryprog (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

G13 shouldn't be used to get rid of cruft is more the point here. G13 only serves harm to the encyclopedia. If anything, we need to revamp how we do speedy deletions. There is no reason a 14 year old YouTuber should have a draft sit for 6 months about his Roblox channel that will never be notable. There need to be better criteria to get rid of crap than G13, which is worthless. Moreover, I think G13 should be changed, at minimum to allow for a period of time to sit, like prod. And active editors drafts should also be ineligible. CUPIDICAE💕 15:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I’m glad I’m not the only one. I’ve started editing older drafts to protect them from deletion. If we all do this then no drafts will be deleted and no editors’ work will be thrown away. 2A01:4C8:496:B51F:647D:63A1:E2F7:FFE0 (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

There is {{promising draft}}, which I doubt anyone would disregard if it's added. Perryprog (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Editors routinely remove and/or ignore that template, for what it's worth. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, I did not know that. That's rather frustrating. Perryprog (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's one of the more bitter points of contention at WP:AFC, though it's reached a bit of a stalemate in the last few months. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah... you're right; I hadn't really thought about it before, but that is pretty ridiculous (both on the "cruft" aspect and the harm that G13 can cause). Perryprog (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps one way to resolve this would be to add a criterion to G13, perhaps something like "Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in: [...] and which would be speedily deletable under criteria A1, A2, A7, A9 or A11 if they were in the article namespace (all requirements must be met.". Unfortunately G13 is necessary to reduce the number of drafts speedily deleted inappropriately using other criteria (it doesn't eliminate the problem, but it does reduce it) and it's existence is what is preventing other bad ideas like draft prods getting consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the way to resolve this, personally, is to change G13 from a speedy deletion criteria to a PROD. If no one comes along in a week to save it, great let's delete. And if someone thinks its worth saving great. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that doing the same thing but adding a few days makes much of a difference. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I will speak from my own experience, but having drafts I created just deleted was frustrating. And I was 100% capable of following the procedures to restore them (including since becoming an admin, refunding myself). What is it like for someone not as well versed in the ways of Wikipedia? I'd rather not create barriers of entry to notable topics being created. If I'd had a chance to remove the tag with "yeah I'm still interested in this" that would have felt better. And might have given me a push to work them. What it's meant practically is that I no longer create drafts in draft space, creating them instead in userspace and this has meant that no one else can come along and help me improve them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but why is this an argument to still create barriers, but with a few more days added on? Why isn't this an argument not to continue on deleting indiscriminately based only on time? If it's the reminder that's good, we can easily automate that and even invite someone to request deletion if they've lost interest, rather than giving them an expiration date. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Barkeep49's suggested reorientation from G13 to PROD seems a useful way to obtain oversight of impending cases, especially now that User:SDZeroBot/PROD_sorting provides a nicely structured summary of current PROD articles.AllyD (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh I like that idea. I more or less agree with OP's underlying point -- that an arbitrary 6 month expiration date for everything in draftspace has never been a good idea. And of course these A-level criteria would be added to the G-level criteria that already apply. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As an admin who works with many stale drafts, I have a different view of it than most other folks. First, there are anywhere from 150-300 drafts that hit their six month period every single day and probably a half dozen editors and admins who go through them. So, whatever system you come up with has to be able to scale up and we need to recruit more editors, like S0091, who are willing to review and assess hundreds of old drafts.every.single.day.

I believe the G13 status was devised partially because there are thousands of old drafts, sitting around, gathering dust. Most that reach the six month point of inactivity were created by new editors who spend an hour writing a draft and who never return to further edit it. A large proportion of aging drafts are simply blank pages with just a page title. If you look at Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions, you'll find over 3,000 drafts that are between 5 and 6 months old. We have a few wonderful editors and admins (like DGG) from AfC who go through this category and "save" drafts that have some potential. More help here would be welcome!

As for me, I always honor the Promising Draft tag and delay a G13 deletion when I see one. Now that we have a new bot notifying draft page creators when their drafts are approaching the six month period (YEAH!), I think there will be fewer deletions and fewer requests at WP:REFUND to restore deleted drafts. That's a win-win for everyone and for the project. The goal, as I see it, is to have drafts that are being worked on and I think sometimes a G13 talk page notice is a reminder to editors that they have a draft out there that they have forgotten about. And remember, ANY draft, whether it is an empty page or a few sentences, that is deleted for its G13 status can be restored upon request unlike other types of speedy deletion or deletion discussion. Like a contested PROD, it is one of the few forms of deletion that are reversible upon request and the Twinkle notices tell draft creators exactly what steps they need to take to restore their drafts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This kind of misses the point. G13 is a failure. We shouldn't be deleting drafts merely because of age. If they're unsuitable because they're inherently unenctclopedic with no hopes of ever improving, we need to modify the g-criteria to apply to drafts. There is no harm in a draft that isn't otherwise breaking policy/consensus (ie. not a totally unsourced blp, rotting away or spam or cruft/webhost material) sitting for Wikipedia's existence. The problem with G13 is actually a problem with the lack of ability to reasonably delete crap from draftspace. CUPIDICAE💕 18:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a combination of both might make more sense. After 6 months without changes article space speedy deletion criteria could apply. I agree that if the draft has some value and a chance to make it to main space, the time without edits is probably not a good enough criteria, but if for example an unambiguous promotion article has been unimproved for 6 months I think it could make sense to delete it from draft space. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

G11 applies to draft space. If it's so unambiguously promotional, it shouldn't be sitting for 6 months. CUPIDICAE💕 18:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, as someone who has looked over tens of thousands of old drafts, I would guess that the ones that have the potential to be articles that were rejected by AFC is about 10%. And I think that is being generous. The vast majority of stale drafts are self-promotional autobiographies about wannabe singers or blank pages or messages about someone's favorite person on YouTube. If you want drafts to be tagged for deletion based on their lack of quality, then you have to start getting AFC reviewers to tag more for speedy deletion and that would require an change in attitude among reviewers. Most of the stuff I see could have been tagged for deletion as test pages or other CSD reasons earlier than six months but they haven't been. So, if Wikipedia is going to do away with CSD G13, then you to find an alternative like having draft reviewers doing more tagging for deletion sooner.

And I encourage people considering this question to not think of their own experiences with drafting an article but actually look over some stale drafts in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions and make up your mind. Look at actual stale drafts and ask yourself what should be done about them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I used to be vehemently opposed to WP:G13, but I eventually came to understand that we need some way of cleaning up drafts that stand no chance of going anywhere. I don't know why {{promising draft}} isn't used. What we do instead is just keep gaming G13 by making a nonsense edit every six months, which is silly. A perfect example of where {{promising draft}} would have made sense was Draft:St. Andrews Church which got rescued from G13 several times by DGG and myself, and eventually KJP1 came along, gave the draft the work it needed, and it it is now living in mainspace under St Andrew's Church, Penrice, where it is a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. To directly address the question at hand, I'd be happy if any of three things happened:
  • G13 got turned into PROD.
  • G13 required that you also cite a second WP:CSD which would apply if the draft were in mainspace in its current form.
  • We got back to using and honoring {{promising draft}}.

Any of those would still let us clean up the trash while preserving things that are worth preserving. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion How about a trial period where A1, A2, A7, A9 and A11 apply as "G6" to draft articles that have not been edited in five months. This would give us a sense of what is "left" when the 6-month counter is reached, which will help us make a more informed decision. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Do not use G6 for this. That's the most abused and misused criteria we have (in addition to being overloaded with disparate legitimate things). Temporary criteria should be in the X series. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• There are several different types of drafts that end up as G13 candidates:

  First, drafts that nobody has submitted. Some of them are so hopeless that apparently whoever saw thought the simplest thing is to let the disappear -- which is OK. except that we should be alert to vandalism and BLP violations, but others are cases where the contributor either didn't understand what to do or wasn't interest enough. Of these, a few are likely to pass AfD as they are, though they may be better with some editing for format in mainspace; when I encounter them, I accept them--in my areasit's about 1 or 2 per batch of 200 G13 candidates, and about half the drafts aren't ones I'm competent to look at, so the real number is about 3 or 4. . Another group are promising article candidates though they need work--in my area there are about 2 or 3 per batch ., so the real number is about 4 to 6. What I would do if I had the time is improve them and then accept them, but I rarely have the time for more than a very few. I usually do a partial fix, and move on, and hope the next time around someone will notice. (This is emphatically not a good way of handling these--we need to not just refer to workgroups, but recruit active editors for them)

  Second, drafts that were declined and then improved, but not resubmitted. They're pretty similar, unless the contributor is still around, in which case they need to be reminded. I accept what I can, and try to at least partially improve the others.

  Third, ones that were never seem to have had a proper checjk for references. I usually just mark them, and hope someone will deal with the,. We need a better way for them aklso. .

  Fourth, and these are the ones that really worry me, are the ones that were declined incorrectly, and not followed up. I am still seeing drafts declined for minor formatting errors in referencing or similar trivia, such as not suggesting categories, or a need to add links. There's also the more understandable cases of ones that just need removal of incorrect material, or addition of the references from other language wikis, or a failure to understand the subject well enough, or to know know our actual criteria in the subject, such as notable academics declined for not meeting GNG, or those where the key element of notability wasn't spotted--the most common is for lack of notability while not spotting that someone is a member of a legislature or holds a major honour. I accept these, unless they need major fixing also, in which case I leave a comment.

  All together, they make up 5 to 10% of the vulnerable G13s. I consider them our fault , and our responsibility DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  There's afith class, where the recommendation was to merge , and it was never carried out. This also bothers me. Saying there's an existing article, so try to improve it, is good advice if the draft has nothing important. If the draft ddoes, the user is very unlkiely to be able to merge the content appropriuately, and an experienced editor needs to do it--like one of us. I mark these, buit again I don't usually have the time. We need a better way here also. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest lowering the G13 time limit from 6 months to 1 month, or something like that. Perhaps then people won't be so eager to misuse other criteria. Adam9007 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  I strongly oppose this. Firstly the intention of draft space is to give people time to slowly work on articles until they are ready for mainspace. One edit every six months is sort of acceptable for this, one edit every month is very much not. Secondly, the issue we're trying to solve here is that too much is being deleted, this proposal would make that much worse not better. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd support requiring that G13 tags stay on an article for a week or so (as with C1 and a few of the file categories), or having some process by which drafts marked as promising by an experienced editor are exempt. I'm a regular at WP:REFUND, where the vast majority of the work is handling requests for G13ed drafts to be restored. The workload there keeps increasing, the number of edits to REFUND went up by 44% between 2018 and 2020, and there aren't many admins doing it. Quite a lot of this is drafts which were recently deleted which probably wouldn't have been if the author had been given a chance to object. Sometimes these editors post comments saying that they aren't sure why these drafts were deleted, note that they didn't know the draft would be deleted due to inactivity or they think the draft was deleted because there was something wrong with it rather than just the passage of time. Sometimes REFUND gets G13 restoration requests from experienced editors who clearly know what they were doing, for drafts on obviously encyclopedic topics. I think there is value in having G13 though as there's quite a bit of undesirable stuff even amongst the drafts where someone requests restoration. Serious BLP violations are rare but it's common to see undiscovered copyright violations, obvious corporate spam or autobiographies. Hut 8.5 20:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Liz, and unfortunately disagree with the developing consensus that G13 somehow harms the encyclopaedia. In my opinion G13 is necessary to deal with the vast number of drafts that are simply abandoned in an unusable state. The query my bot uses to find drafts that haven’t been edited in at least 5 months shows that there are currently over 5000 such drafts. From a brief, unscientific sample large swathes of these appear nowhere near ready for mainspace, and many are never going to be - many are either patently non-notable people (e.g. so and so is an up and coming YouTuber), corporate profiles that come nowhere near meeting WP:NCORP, or simply pure nonsense. There are far too few people willing to review and improve worthy drafts (I certainly will return to doing so at AfC when I’m back on the active list) compared to the number of drafts that exist. Without G13, the backlog would build without limit. For what its worth, I oppose any ‘weakening’ of CSD G13. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 22:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

And I think your bot giving editors a head's up after drafts have not been edited in five months is the actual solution here. I think editors just need to be reminded of their drafts and then they will make an edit to them or return to actively working on them. You don't need a week-long PROD-like waiting period if you let editors know a month ahead of time that they drafts are nearing the 6 month point. I think the frustration comes out of Hasteur Bot going out of commission last summer and these 5 month notices disappearing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am the original poster here, having to edit under an account on a different computer because it seems some people cannot handle dissent and blocked my original IP. I am however grateful for the support my idea has received. In response to the deletionists - no, a bot notifying people is completely insufficient. What if the person returns after the deletion has already happened? They have to go through the bureaucracy of WP:REFUND just to get their own work back?! I will begin mass-editing older drafts to ensure that none meet the G13 standard. Once G13 has been repealed, obviously that will no longer be necessary. Ewalker33 (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)