Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:01, 11 April 2013

Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria

Shortcut

WP:NEWCSD

Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be

Objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific.
Uncontestable: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully.
Frequent: Speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. These processes are more discriminating because they treat articles case-by-case, and involve many points of view; CSD sacrifices these advantages in favor of speed and efficiency. If a situation arises only rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it with one of the other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible, and avoids instruction creep.
Nonredundant: If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. New rules should be proposed only to cover situations that cannot be speedily deleted otherwise.

If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page.

this header: view • edit

Proposed new criterion: abandoned article drafts

I would like to propose a new criterion: article drafts abandoned for over a year. Article drafts, such as declined WP:AFC submissions, potentially contain unsourced statements and are completely unmonitored. The archives have hoards of them. Virtually all of them would be quickly speedied or prodded if they were in article space, but they sit peacefully undisturbed forever in the archives. --B (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A related discussion has already taken place at Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation#Procedure_for_abandoned_failed_submissions. I proposed a new CSD criteria "G13 : Abandoned drafts A page not in article space that is clearly a draft, but violates any article related speedy deletion criteria, and does not appear to be actively worked on". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better idea - when introducing article criteria, we say "the following criteria apply to any article, or any draft that has not been edited in over a year" No reason to create a new deletion criteria. Ego White Tray (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really keen on having quantifiable time periods, like a year, six months, three and a half weeks etc, and would prefer to leave it to general discretion and common sense about when to apply a certain criteria. Also, a proposed G13 would deal with userspace sandbox articles for people who have left Wikipedia and forgotten about them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are two different problems. Yes, something speedyable as an article should be speedyable as an AFC submission. I don't think it needs a separate number, but just a statement at the top of the articles section that article standards apply to articles in whatever namespace they reside, with the understanding that accommodations are made for in-use article drafts. No time limit for those is needed - and if you're just making an AFC submission about your kid who placed first in the spelling bee, there's no reason to wait any time at all. But while that's a very useful thing, that's not what my proposal is about - my proposal is is for things that ARE NOT OTHERWISE SPEEDYABLE. Meaning, it's a bio piece where an assertion of significance sufficient to not qualify for A7 has been made. But just because it's not speedyable doesn't mean it needs to exist. All or substantially all abandoned submissions, if they were in article space, would be quickly disposed of with either {{prod}} or {{blp-prod}} tags. The fact that they are sitting in AFC space keeps them from being prodded. That is the problem I am trying to solve. --B (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To explain what I'm talking about, I picked a few arbitrary samples from the archives:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NVIATWAS - I have no idea what the hell this is, but it isn't a person, animal, organization, web content, or event. It would be nice to be able to delete it without having to jump through a lot of hoops.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sara Marwari High School and College - high schools are explicitly excluded from A7, but this one has no g-hits other than Facebook, Google+, and Wikipedia. So while it's not speedyable, it would be prodded very quickly if it were in article space.
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/The Truth (doctrine) - This submission proclaims The Truth (tm) of Jesus Christ. Though we prefer to discuss religion in a neutral manner, religious exhortations are not speedyable.

Now, I did find a gracious plenty more articles that are speedyable, including one attack page that I just took care of. But the existence of speedyable articles shouldn't stop us from also coming up with a rule for other abandoned articles. --B (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I lean towards agreeing. I think this was last discussed as Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_46#Can_an_Article_for_creation_submission_be_speedied_under_an_A_criteria.3F (September 2012). I commented there in favour, subject to strict time factors.
I think an AfC submission could be speediable if (1) It was reviewed and unambiguously failed; and (2) it is old, old both since creation date and since last meaningful edit; and (3) the author has been offered the option to userfy and is informed of the option of requesting their deleted content emailed (this calls for a templated message).
As some people sometimes forget, it should be reminded that just because something *can* be speedy deleted, it doesn't mean that it *must* be deleted. Speedy deletion authorises an admin to make a unilateral decision on their own judgement and act on it.
On the other hand, nearly everything useless could just be blanked. Put it behind a template explaining that this is old content, submitted and rejected, unlikely to be of any use to the project. Leaving this cleanup to blanking means that any editor can do it, any other editor can review it, and undo it, and the process doesn't need CSD policy-level rules. Disputes (very rare in practice) can be resolved at MfD. Actually offensive material is covered by the G criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to this proposal if it were restricted to AFC submissions. I can see problems if it applies to userspace drafts, though. Some userspace drafts serve as convenient references for someone (I have one of these myself that I haven't edited in over a year) and while they would not survive main article space, should probably be kept in their respective user spaces. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree to this applying to userspace. I more so disagree with it applying to an once productive editor, and extremely so for an active editor. Maybe ambiguous about users that were briefly active long ago and never made a lasting productive edit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For user-space drafts, if the editor is even semi-active, the logical and polite action is to send a note to the editor saying something like: "I that User:Example/PageName in your user space hasn't been edited since May 2009. Are you still working on it, or is it time to delete it?" Summarily tagging other people's user pages for speedy deletion is not polite -- and, therefore, not a real smart idea. --Orlady (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about only allowing user-space drafts to be speedied only if the user has not edited in over a year, the page is unambiguously intended as a draft article (in other words, we're not using this as an excuse to clean out userspaces), and the page would be subject to speedy deletion if it were in article space? So I'm proposing these two rules, which I think meet both needs:

U4. Userspace drafts of inappropriate articles.

Pages in userspace that are unambiguously intended as article drafts, where the user has not edited in over a year, and where the page would be subject to speedy deletion if it were in article space.

G13. Abandoned Articles for creation submissions.

Rejected Articles for creation submissions that have not been edited in over a year, provided that if the user is still active, they have been notified at least one week prior to deletion. Note that failed submissions that meet a general criterion for speedy deletion, such as spam or violations of the biographies of living persons policy should be deleted immediately without waiting one year. If an article submission is written on an otherwise appropriate topic, but was rejected for lack of sources or a similar concern, consider improving it rather than deleting it.

Comments? Yeas and Nays? Changes? --B (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how a G13 would be a speedy if you have to give a week's notice - isn't that a form of prod? Otherwise, U4 and G13 look good. If someone hasn't edited for a year, they're not likely to suddenly take things up and turn the 'abandoned' draft into an FA. If the thing IS showing a good potential, it should be rescued if possible. There should be some way of notifying willing rescuers of the existence of candidates for completion. Peridon (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A delayed-action speedy isn't unprecedented; see WP:CSD#C1, WP:CSD#T3 and most of the F criteria. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, my suggested notification on G13 was only if the user is active. If the user hasn't edited recently, I completely agree - no need for the bureaucratic step - just delete it. I'd be perfectly okay with phrasing it as a courtesy rather than a requirement. --B (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about this. I don't think abandoned draft should be covered by speedy deletion in most cases. It's not uncommon for an abandoned draft brought to miscellany for deletion to end with a "move to article space" - some of these drafts are good enough to be presented as articles, and I don't want to see any speedy deleted. So, U4 should not include A7 " no significance" and A9 "bands". G13 has massive concerns for me, but since it's more of a wikispace than a user space, I would be a little more amenable to speedy deletions there. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A9 isn't 'bands'. A9 is non-notable recordings by non-articled artistes. Non-notable musicians are in A7. What I see this proposal's intention as is to eliminate the crap and actually get the good drafts finished. I could see active editors agreeing to deletion if they really aren't going to finish a draft, or to agree to someone else finishing it (as with an user space draft article Bragod that I started and Nikthestunned found a year later and dug up the references for). (I've no objections to anyone adding to my Ailish Tynan start-up too...) Where there's stuff that's by editors that were SPAs, or who have now jumped ship, leaving unfinished material, it needs triage. Admins that work in CSD are mostly quite good at deciding if something is unredeemable crap or has potential. There are editors who enjoy rescuing things - I pass stuff over to two or three now. One even turned a piece that appeared to be pure spam into a sound article following a very polite request for help from a desperate beginner. (Unusual, that - would-be advertisers mostly try to tell us the rules and how they don't apply...) I'd like to see the good stuff rescued - and the crap dumped. It could be possible to get a Rescue Project (or just a Category) going where things could be listed for the rescuers to get going on. Sort of the opposite of Speedy Deletion - Speedy Rescue. Think about it. Peridon (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get working on that category. Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.active 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron and its Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (it formerly had a template that I believe placed articles in a category, but due to canvassing concerns, it was replaced by the list). isaacl (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I already started a village pump thread. Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.active 17:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could have a standalone PROD template for badly written abandoned drafts (like {{BLP prod}}) Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.active 11:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose U4. I don't think that enough old userspace drafts are uncontestable and frequent enough to justify a CSD criterion. To my memory, of the number of userpages nominated at MfD, a large proportion is contested, and never has the number been so terribly great. I excluding some cases of mass nominations from the userspace of particular users, but I note that this U4 criteria could easily be misused to attempt to avoid difficult discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak support G13. On G13, there are indeed a great many old and failed AfC submissions, so many that they would overwhelm MfD, and when cases have been nominated, the failed content has been typically unimpressive. Not always completely worthless though, and so anyone applying G13 would have to practice some discernment. Ideally, I think, an admin preparing a mass exercise of G13 should send some test cases though MfD just to be sure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Require mandatory notification of the deletion on the talk page of the AfC author, to ensure a minimum record of AfC submissions by the user (for non admins to find). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate idea I think deleting obviously abandonded AFC submissions that haven't been touched in a year could easily be incorporated under the umbrella of "housekeeping". That is exactly what it is, after all, just taking out the trash. Or, a bot could simply run a script that detects all declined AFC sub,missions that have not been editied in six months and it could PROD them. If the creator is still around and still cares they can remove the PROD. In the much more likely event that they are not around and do not care it will be deleted a week later with a minimum of fuss, so essentially the same thing could be accomplished withput adding a new criterion here. Don't get me wrong, this is a real issue, I just think there may be existing processes that can dal with it with just some minor tweaks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose encouraging such a broadening of G6. Using G6 would make it so much harder to track such deletions, we may as well do away with logs. If there is no consensus for this G13, then to bypass this consensus-finding discussion is wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would cut out any chance of rescue unless you've got a very discriminating bot. I'm quite happy with prod, because there is a lot of utter rubbish there despite what the retentionists think. And there's probably still some attack stuff, BLP violation and other such in there too - although a couple of editors have been winnowing out quite a bit of chaff that was unredeemable and should have been tagged when it was first seen. I'm not so sure about using G6 unless it has been established as a matter of policy that abandoned for over one year AfC stuff is sweepable up as housekeeping and deleting it is not vandalism. There are a number of editors who seem to regard AfC contributions as sacrosanct and to be preserved for all time against the return of the author. One year is to me a sign that they're not coming back. They might have been in hospital or jail - OK, someone can undelete if that's the case. They're more likely to be worrying about other things... Peridon (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not housekeeping, period. Housekeeping is about cleaning up problems, and never about deleting content (unless you forgot after a deletion discussion) Ego White Tray (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose U4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thine Antique Pen (talk • contribs) 18:44, 10 March 2013
Support G13 without the notification of the editor(s). No objection against people voluntarily giving such notification, but to make this a requirement makes the process too cumbersome and slow. We are dealing with articles that have been proposed, have been rejected, and haven't been touched for a year or longer. No reason to let these linger around any longer (we have thousands of these, older day by day cats list on average about 40 to 45 articles). Fram (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support G13 - I think a year is a long time in AFC. I'd say after 6 months we should approach the submitter, and either userfy the draft or delete it. On the other hand, I would oppose U4. A year isn't that long for an established editor - some people take extended Wikibreaks and still return. And things can languish as drafts for a long time and still be turned into articles - I just took adraft I hadn't touched in two years and turned it into an article. MFD is always an option for userspace drafts. I'd be hesitant to allow speedy deletion of something that's otherwise acceptable after just one year of inactivity. Guettarda (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both No, a speedy criterion is not the right way to handle either problem. While it may offend some people that drafts are hither and yon, it's not actually a problem. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is not the right way, then what is? Many of the 20,000 or so really old AfC drafts are spam, a significant portion are copyright violations; we can spend a lot of time checking them one by one, or we can make it easier and simply delete the older ones. What is the problem with doing this? What valuable contributions are being lost by these deletions, and do they outweigh the benefit of getting rid of lots of problematic content? Fram (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any unmonitored space is somewhere that libel or other controversial content could be hiding. Yes, something with libel can already be deleted right now today, but if whoever reviews the submission misses it, then it stays there forever. We have a vested interest in keeping unmonitored spaces as few as possible and there's no upside to keeping clearly inappropriate article drafts around. --B (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With reference to the remark about 'established' editors - how many established editors use AfC? I would think the vast majority of the users there are new accounts (and probably SPAs) or IPs. I concede that established editors may have stuff in their cupboards for a long time and just a polite message might revive their interest in something - or result in a U1... Peridon (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would venture to say that zero established editors use AFC. Maybe one or two created their first article that way, but that's the rarest of rare exceptions. I picked out ten random articles from Category:Declined AfC submissions. One was created by a named SPA. The other nine were created by IP users. --B (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was (sort of) the point of my comment: if, after six months, we can track down someone who made an AFC submission, then it's worth seeing if they're interested in doing anything with the draft. If we can't, and no one else has shown interest, then we shouldn't feel badly about deleting the draft (IOW, it should be speedy-able). I suppose tagging them, and putting them in a prod-like category, might also be a useful idea...that way, people who were interested could monitor the category and turn them into articles, if they saw something that really interested them. Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't imagine for the life of me why anyone thinks we need to keep the 381 pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as BLP violations‎. That's insane. Ditto for the 985 pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as jokes‎. We can talk about having some kind of reasonable review process for articles that are conceivably on an appropriate topic but only lacking in sources ... but there's 87,956 declined AFC submissions and the overwhelming majority of them are utter junk. It's unmaintained and unmaintainable. --B (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support G13 there are an awful lot of declined AfC submissions, they have very little value (it certainly isn't worth sorting through them one by one), they could contain problematic content, and nobody is maintaining them. Hut 8.5 20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As an added note here, if it would allay the concerns of those who don't want some sort of mass deletion, we could have an orderly process where we slowly creep up the deletion date. So the ultimate target is to delete year-old AFCs, but we start out deleting ones from 3 years ago, then 2 years 11 months, 2 years 10 months, etc, so that there is opportunity for those who wish to to review them. We could also hit the obvious ones first that should have been speedied to begin with (like the jokes and obvious BLP violations, which are speediable now anyway) and use a PROD-like process for anything that is a less obvious case. --B (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see three problems with ancient AfC submissions:

Lots of AfC submissions are copyright violations, but these are hard to spot after a long time has passed and people have started copying the page from Wikipedia.
WP:N: You can get an article about anything, but the non-notable ones end up in the Wikipedia talk namespace.
WP:NOTHOST: Since no one is deleting these pages, you can store basically any contents in the Wikipedia talk namespace.

For these reasons, I think that we need to delete old pages somehow. A delayed G13 speedy for pages not edited for a year sounds like a good idea. Also, in case someone wants to pick up the page again, we could permit undeletion at WP:REFUND and removal of the deletion template, thereby allowing the page to be around for another year. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose U4. Some user pages that look like drafts may actually be kept around as examples of various editing techniques, such as markup for special symbols, citation markup, and the like. The user may be referring to these examples, without changing them, when editing articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Proposal #1: Apply PROD to all drafts

Some people above have touched on this idea, but I think the real solution here is to apply PROD to article drafts. As many people above have notices, speedy deletions generally shouldn't apply to article drafts, since they're not done it. Obviously there are exceptions, such as copyright violations and attack pages. There is no harm in PRODing it for seven days to see if anyone objects. It also would automatically give a place for the rescue squad to look for drafts with potential. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure PROD scales up to tagging tens of thousands of drafts, which (iirc) is what the actual figure of abandoned ones is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PROD on unwatched pages is just a CSD under another name. The word "Proposed" implies that someone will read/review it. As no one would review thousands of unwatched AfC failures, the word "proposed" is inappropriate. PROD is inappropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one word of caution here ... don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough". Yes, right now, there's a backlog, but once that backlog is worked though, PROD would easily handle it going forward. And while yes, SmokeyJoe, you're right that nobody is going to have these articles watchlisted, is that really any different than most articles getting PRODded now? Besides, a PROD guarantees that at least two people review it (the nominator plus the admin) and that creates an opportunity for one of them to decide that the article is worth moving into article space. Under the current system, nobody EVER is going to review the articles and they will sit there completely unmonitored, potentially containing libel or unsourced claims, until the end of time. I think allowing them to be prodded is the perfect compromise solution. I would propose, though, that we still maintain the time requirement - that it only be allowed for article drafts abandoned for some time - for the sake of not biting new contributors (ie, you make an article draft and five minutes later someone slaps a tag on it). --B (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a false pretense about PROD in this case that I find wrong. No one will review them, and/or prodding will damage the existing article PROD system. Pretending that there will be a PROD review means that prodders may not feel they need to act with full responsibility. The CSD G13 path is more honest. With CSD criteria, we can demand that the admin is sure the requirements are met, requirements that I think should be: the draft is long untouched; the original author is long inactive, a note is made on the original authors usertalkpage (if registered). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Proposal #2: An orderly process

I'd like to propose alternative proposal #2: an orderly process. This should allay the concerns of those who don't want to risk useful content being lost in a mass effort.

Remind reviewers that general criteria apply to AFC submissions and that unsourced BLPs with a negative tone, jokes, and similar wholly inappropriate content should be deleted on the spot, not blanked and left in place for years.
Gradually start G13 out at 3 years, then slowly tick it up to 1 year. This keeps CSD from being overwhelmed and allows for articles to be reviewed before deletion.
Allow only "clearly and indisputably unencyclopedic topics" to be speedied under G13 - everything else has to be PRODed. This will allow for things that might be usable to be reviewed prior to deletion.

Submitted, --B (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a mass MfD nomination of a narrow time range of very old declined AfC submissions, or even from a worse subcategory, to demonstrate (test) an overwhelming consensus that on a case by case basis the community approves their deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
87,956? Ye gods! That's way worse than I thought It would be. OK, I'll go with AP2 G13 and prod. I presume there'll be some provision for anything that's potentially usable after a bit of work? A sort of open access incubator for fostering rescuers. While we're at it - how about unreviewed submissions? The stuff people started while bored and forgot about after something more entertaining came along? Are there many of them that are obviously dead ducks? Peridon (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if we use the dated categories, those would catch both the unreviewed submissions and the failed ones. If there are any unreviewed submissions (and I think they would be few and far between), they could be handled more carefully and promoted to articles if of sufficient quality. --B (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked at those categories, specifically Category:AfC submissions by date/December 2005, and noticed two article talk pages there. So, are articles chosen by AfC supposed to stay in these categories forever? If so, it doesn't seem that the dated categories would be very helpful. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, anything that IS a free standing article now would not be liable to G13 (although it might be liable to something else...). It's the non-accepted and unreviewed stuff we're after. The stuff that's currently going nowhere, and hasn't been going anywhere for quite some time. The stuff that needs to either be put where rescuers know about it, or binned. Peridon (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, then, I should remove those two article talk pages (and any else I find) from the category? Ego White Tray (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we decided that we wanted to use the dated categories for this, a bot could easily be called upon to split the rejected submissions out from the accepted ones or the pre-2009 pages where we didn't have a separate page for each article. (September 2008 is the first month where each submission gets its own page.) That part of it isn't a problem. --B (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does the 87,956 number include the Talk pages that are in the Category:AfC submissions by date? Am I correct in believing that the Talk pages are being retained in the category as a record of AfC activity? If so, should this be changed to a hidden category?
SBaker43 (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 87K is only the ones that are in the declined AFC submissions category. There is a separate undated category for all declined submissions. The dated categories are for all submissions (declined, approved, or otherwise). If we were to approve G13, we could easily have a bot create dated categories for declined submissions just like we have for prods, orphaned images, etc. --B (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we don't have to policy-in point 2: the process by which we do something is bound to policy, but doesn't have to do so immediately. If we have a criterion on which we may delete them, it doesn't mean we have to tag and delete them all right away. I could see the case of the tagging being done by bot, which checks if the CSD cat isn't overflowing (for example, only tag if there are less than 30 pages in the cat, starting with the oldest untouched). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G13

Just a procedural point, do we have consensus to add G13 to WP:CSD, or does it need to go to an RfC first? We certainly need to check the precise wording of such as a criteria very carefully. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the greater community would require an RfC for something like this. Many people in the community are not aware this discussion is taking place. 64.40.54.205 (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been paying any attention? Clearly there is a lot of opposition to the idea. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "do we have consensus to add G13?" Clearly your answer is "No" in this instance. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we would have consensus if we modified the G13 proposal to the wording of U4, that the article would be subject to speedy deletion under the other A criteria if in article space. Presumably, the usual one would be A7. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that it doesn't actually solve any problem. The problem is that right now, we have an unmaintainable space where libel and copyright violations reign free. Nobody is going to randomly patrol AFC submissions, so if the problem wasn't caught immediately upon submission, it will sit there forever. If we are empowered to delete ALL old submissions, then those will be processed in dated categories just like orphaned fair use images, PRODs, etc. But if we aren't deleting all of them, then nobody will have any way of knowing what articles have or have not been reviewed for deletability and so none of them will get reviewed. The libel and copyright violations that we desire to find will sit there forever. --B (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than saying G13 pages can be deleted if subject to deletion as an article, why not just expand the "A" criteria to cover drafts? I'm just thinking of the deletion logs here - seeing "no significance" is much more informative than "draft subject to speedy delete", which tells you squat. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't want to do that - someone might start on an article draft without having enough information to prove the person's importance. We don't need to get all bitey by deleting their article while they're in the middle of working on it. --B (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the AfC people are tagging quite a lot of junk as it appears. How much is getting by still, I don't know, but in the earlier days it would seem that a lot was missed or was even preserved. Peridon (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complete oppose

This is the exact reason that I created Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts. Now, if we're talking about drafts on non-notable subjects or drafts that are attack pages, then fine. But everything else should not be deleted just because it's "old". Move it to the Wikiproject. Silverseren^C 20:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, the vast majority of abandoned drafts are self promoted vanispamcrufvertisments, just not sufficiently blatant to fall foul of G11. If they somehow got moved to mainspace tomorrow, I suspect we'd see a couple of thousand CSD A7s appear very quickly. Seriously, spend some time on the AFC Help desk and see how many times you have to explain WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS to people - if you don't get a sense of satisfaction from improving someone's clue, you'll go mad. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's fine to delete those, but just making a blanket "delete all drafts older than a year" isn't helping anything. I've found plenty of abandoned article drafts on notable topics that were practically completed already with only a few formatting changes needed before moving it into mainspace. Silverseren^C 00:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A separation of declined AfC submissions into material with possible potential and material of no possible potential (to be deleted) would be desirable, I think. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Silverseren^C 00:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it certainly would. There are so many possibilities that I can think of no way of doing it except by MfD. Perhaps rather than discuss how to find an algorithm for how to do it by speedy, we should simply get started. MfD can be just as simple as Prod. The only question is, how are we to identify these items? I see no convenient category or list of rejected or unsubmitted items, but perhaps I have missed it in the confusion of the AfC project's pages and procedures. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilverSeren, at first glance I see 6 articles that your wikiproject has so far gotten into the mainspace, in over a year time. Perhaps there is a much longer list somewhere, but I don't see it. How do you propose to deal with the 80,000 old AfC submissions? Feel free to move any you really feel are salvageable to your project, but why keep all the others around indefinitely? Why keep thousands of copyright violations and the like around for the few potential gems between them? Fram (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with deleting the copyright violations or the attack pages, I just oppose outright deletion of all the articles without looking at them at all. I don't agree with bulk deletions. We've already had enough stuff lost in the past because of bulk deletions. Silverseren^C 02:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outright copyright violations and attack pages can already be speedy deleted right now today. The problem is that nobody is ever going to patrol for them because it would be purely a random process. You have no way of knowing if someone else has already reviewed a particular AFC submission so any effort at weeding them out would be duplicative at best. And if we're going to have some kind of orderly process to find copyright violations and attack pages, we might as well use that same orderly process to delete anything that has no hope of ever becoming an article. --B (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the good folks at WikiProject Abandonned Drafts - where the hell have you people been?!?! Why is this the first time folks who deal with hundreds of drafts every day at AFC are even hearing about the existence of the project? If the Project doesn't have the capacity to deal with around fifty drafts per day, then there's really not much point in the project even existing. Using a teaspoon to empty a pond while it's being filled from a fire hose is pointless. Your energy would be better spent doing AfC reviews. Roger (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Just thought I should post an update that MadmanBot (talk · contribs) is now checking AfC submissions for copyright violations. Also, several people are working on bots for checking AfC space for copyvios (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Reviewers: Please check for copyright violations!). Anybody that wants to check individual articles can use the Copyvio Detector at tools:~earwig/copyvios and G12 the problem articles. I'll also note that attack pages, BLP vios, etc. can/already are being G10'ed and don't need a new criteria in case people weren't sure. So many of the issues raised above are actively being worked on by the community at this time. Just figured people might like an update on the situation. Cheers. 64.40.54.32 (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it will take much more time and effort to check all these old failed article submissions for these problems than the proposed G13 crterion, and all that extra effort will have very little benefit (in the form of articles). It is a serious improvement that all new entries will be checked for copyvio obviously, so that in the future they don't remain for a year or more, but I don't think they are a viable alternative for the speedy deletion of all old entries. I have spent some time individually checking and deleting old spam (G11) articles, and it takes way too much time. Fram (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably ought to point out that all our text copyright processes are seriously undermanned and frequently get backlogged. Increasing the workload isn't going to do any good. Hut 8.5 12:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Request

At Wikipedia_talk:Database_download#dump_of_Articles_for_Creation_requested I've asked for an archive of the contents of Articles for Creation before it gets nuked. —rybec 04:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding CSD F1

Quick question regarding WP:CSD F1, could it apply for an unused image of .png format which was converted to a .svg format (which is used). Also, sidenote, both files have shadows on commons. Thanks in advance, — -dainomite 05:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the PNG is not used, it is an unused duplicate of lower quality, even if it is another format than the SVG. Sounds like a perfect F1 candidate to me. Try it out and see if an admin agrees. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank ya, the only reason I didn't was because it says "...having the same file format..." so I wasn't sure.

— -dainomite 09:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at these. The commons images represent the same concept as the local images but in a layout that is less logically laid out, so I would not consider them as direct equivalents. The local images are not the same as each other either - File:Graph with all three-colourings.png is in error because all those where the 3-node is green are duplicated, whilst it has none where the 3-node is blue. In these respects File:Graph with all three-colourings.svg is correct. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#F1 and WP:CSD#F8 are clear: they only apply to files in the same format. Also, don't ask the same question at multiple places! --Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says that it applies to an unused duplicate OR a lower quality image in the same format, I think this met 1 1/2 of the 2 possible criteria. But in the end, it is up to the reviewing admin, so I think as long as it's in good faith, it doesn't really matter. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't apply, because PNG and SVG are nowhere near being the same format as each other. The point of the criterion is not <"unused duplicate" OR "lower quality in same format"> — it's <"unused duplicate OR lower quality" AND "same format">. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A10 and AfC

There are frequent submissions at Articles for Creation that inferior or exact duplicates of existing articles in mainspace. There's obvious no point in having these sit around indefinitely once they are identified,and deletion of these should be as uncontroversial as any A10. But A10 cannot currently be used; because AfC is in WT space, only the General criteria apply. I encounter several of them a week just by accident, and I am sure there are many more if we had a way of looking for them. I can see some solutions:

The current way, which is to speedy delete them as G6, uncontroversial maintenance , which is a nonspecific catch all that many AfC reviewers wont recognize.
moving A10 to a general criteria,allowing for removal of duplications of content anywhere in WP -- I don't think this would work, because many pages of instructions and the like in WP space are duplicative -- deliberating different ways of giving the same advice.
moving A10 to the general category, and but specifying that it is for duplications anywhere in WP of content in WP articles.
making a special rule, as a G rule, applying only to AfCs. (and possibly, user space)
I think it might not be a bad idea to make special rules for AfCs, as they pose distinctive problems, but this is opening a very wide range of possibilities best discussed elsewhere. (That they're in WT space in the first place is pretty weird -- it's an artifact of how the system was constructed, and we should really think of something better--but that's for elsewhere also.)

I ask for opinions. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 would prevent people from copying article content to their user space to work on it, which isn't a very good idea. Hut 8.5 10:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be restricted to non-userspace areas? I mean, like A7 is restricted with regard to educational establishments with a note on the template? Peridon (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support allowing A10 to apply to AfC submissions as if they were in mainspace. Prefer to keep A10 in A. As a G criterion, it could be misusd, and I think it would have infrequent use outside mainspace and AfC. Using G6 is a misuse of G6. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do something. In order of decreasing preference...

Where A10 applies to an AfC were it in mainspace, immediately redirect to the existing article. This will benefit the author, even an IP, should he ever return to look. The useless content in history behind the redirect will never hurt anyone, most likely be never again accessed. Redirects are cheap. Checking this criterion applies required someone to just now identify the exiting article. Advantage: any editor can do it right now.
Screw the convention that A only applies to articles, with an exception that A10 also applies to AfC.
Expland further G6 as the catchallelse criterion.
Screw the convention that G applies anywhere, by converting A10 to G, advising that it probably only should be used for articles and AfC. I fear its misuse in generalising its principle to newly created categories, bypassing CfD speedy processes, for example. Also fear speedy deletion of a new essay because it is too similar to another.
Do nothing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that DGG will not take it amiss if I say that when he suggests widening deletion criteria, it's likely to be a good idea, as he certainly doesn't believe in deletion except when it is really justified. SmokeyJoe's edit summary says "support something", and I think that is right: something should be done. My own preference is to simply add a mention of this in the list of examples of situations covered by G6. That is, in my opinion, better than any of the other methods suggested, all of which which are involve making the categorisation into A, G, etc more complex. In fact, they all involve one or other of the following: (1) introducing a so-called G criterion which does not actually apply generally, so that there is increase in complexity, introducing restrictive rules as to how it can be used, or (2) making a so-called A criterion apply to pages other than articles, adding an exception to what "A" means, adding complexity and risk of confusion, or (3) making a new category of criteria, alongside G, A, etc, which would again be increasing the complexity of the policy. I believe that one of the worst things that has happened to Wikipedia over the years is the gradual increase in complexity of policies and guidelines, making Wikpedia more and more perplexing to newcomers. Adding a simple note to the existing G6 criterion, without changing any of the rules of scope of the various categories, is the simplest method, and I really don't see any problem with doing so. However, the main thing is "do something". JamesBWatson (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apply A10 to AFC - That said, I'm not going to say that all article criteria should apply to Articles for Creation, but A10 definitely should. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Create a new criteria set It seems a bit of a bad precedent to expand A10 to the project namespace. G are established already. I'd say just create a new category (maybe 'W'?) and set that precedent instead, which could be later used as the basis for discussion for other applications. Whatever it is though, it has to be as narrow as possible. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of complaints that we have too many criteria as it is. Having two criteria for two slightly different types of pages that are otherwise identical doesn't help this. The is why broken redirects was merged into dependent on non-existant pages and why blatant copyvios went from article to general. Just apply A10 to AfC, and we can later decide how many of the other article criteria can apply. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that if the proposed criterion ends up as a G criterion, it would apply to userspace drafts, too. Do we want to open the door to deletion of stale or inferior copies of content in userspace as well? I could see there being some benefit to doing so, but others may want to avoid this. One thought that crossed my mind is a general statement that since all AFC drafts are intended to eventually be moved to article space, that we could make an explicit declaration that A criteria apply to them too. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose applicability to userspace. See the similar recent discussion on a proposed U4 above at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposed_new_criterion:_abandoned_article_drafts. Managing someone elses userspace can come across as rude. Deleting their userpages is worse. I've not seen any claim that there is a large obvious problem with drafts in userspace anything like AfC. A particular problem is that a large proportion AfC content was created by IPs or soon-abandoned new accounts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Of everything suggest I like best the one I had not thought of at all, -SmokeyJoe's preferred suggestion, of a redirect. Of course it will be sometimes used wrongly, but it is the easiest reversed of all of them. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that this text has explain all my quires about them deleting my pages so thanks!

Navboxes with no articles

Recently at templates for discussion, we've had a lot of navbox templates where most of its articles have been deleted. These pretty much always end the same. I would suggest a possible new criterion below:

T4: Navigation box templates with links to one or zero current articles may be deleted after seven days. This includes templates where every link is a redirect to the same article.

Thoughts? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC) :I would think that something patterned on DB-C1 would work: a navigation template not transcluded in more than one article for at least four days. I don't know if admins have access to historic tranclusion stats, though, so it might not even be possible to implement. A navbox in a single article could realistically have been made along with the first in a series of related articles, or even in preparation for those articles; so I think you need to give a reasonable amount of time for those articles to be created and the navbox implemented therein when devising a CSD criteria. If it is not technically feasible to check transclusion history, and give editors time to write content appropriate for the navbox, then I don't think a CSD is appropriate. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above may look similar, but are actually two quite different proposals.

Ego White Tray's proposal is based on the content of the navbox
Vanisaac's proposal is based on the usage of the template

These are both forms of pointless navbox, but while the two sets may overlap to some degree, they are separate issues.

Vanisaac's proposal seems to me to be superfluous. If a navbox is not transcluded anywhere, then it will usually be superfluous ... but since it is not cluttering any articles, I don't see any need to speedy it. It's just another form unused template, and I don't see any need to make navboxes a special case of unused template. (BTW, I am an admin, and AFAIK there are no admin tools to check transclusion history. There may be some such external tools on the toolserver, but I haven't checked.)

However, EWT's proposal seems straightforward: speedy delete a "navbox-to-nowhere". That sort of navbox is just pointless clutter on articles, and unless sufficient content is created within 7 days, there is no point in keeping it. If it is speedy deleted, then it can be restored as a userspace draft if the creator wants it, and/or restored in mainspace if and when the actual content is created. But if the rest of the linked content is not actually being created, then the navbox is at best premature. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, mine was based on a complete misreading of EWT's proposal. I don't actually have a concrete perspective on the actual proposal, so please continue while I sit in the corner trying not to be noticed. In my defense, I've been implementing an infobox for the last few days, so my mind is full of transclusions. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 17:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And they just got G8ed

Ok, an interesting twist - three of the TfD discussions that prompted this (all here) just got deleted as G8 (page dependent on deleted of non-existant page). Based on comment above, I seriously doubt that there is agreement to use that criteria this way, but maybe it would be simpler to add red-linking nav box templates there? Ego White Tray (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the admin who deleted those templates. I have no objection to creating a more specific criterion for this situation, but in the meantime when deletion of pages turns a viable navbox into a navbox-to-nowhere, then WP:CSD#G8 seems to me to be a perfect fit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK to me - the template is dependent on its listed articles for its whole point in life, and if they've all gone, so should it. G8 does say 'page' not 'pages', but there must have been a point when it was dependent on only one. Others may object to G8 being used this way, but I don't. Peridon (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G6 would equally apply.—Kww(talk) 16:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G6 never applies if there for any content-based deletion. "Housekeeping" means what it says. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A navigation template that doesn't navigate anywhere is a matter of housekeeping.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G6 is not a "catch all" and is already abused for things that should not be speedily deleted or which fit under other criteria. An empty navbox template is a page that depends on deleted or non-existent pages so it fits under G8, meaning there is no need to shoehorn yet another thing into G6. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'm going to have to say no to G8ing empty navboxes. We need to give editors a reasonable chance to create articles, add links, or userfy, so immediate deletion is not OK, That leads back to the T4 proposal above that would give seven days. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The templates can always be restored if needed. Besides, the workflow is generally that articles are created first, and then navboxes follow once there are enough articles to warrant a navbox. The existence of a navbox before there are any articles to navigate to... just doesn't make sense. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 15:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G10 and redirects

Butcher of the Balkans, a redirect to Slobodan Milošević is currently being discussed at WP:RFD. It's deletion log [1] shows that it was twice speedily deleted under criterion G10, despite the term being present in article and supported by reliable sources. This is not the first time that non-neutral but clearly plausible redirects have been deleted under G10, despite their failing the "and serve no other purpose" clause of the criterion.

What I propose is to add something like "Redirects from plausible search terms, for example terms used on the target page, are not eligible under this criterion - see WP:RNEUTRAL." to the description of G10. Thryduulf (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. May I suggest "This does not apply to redirects if the term is cited in the target article."? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer "used" rather than "cited". Terms that are citable but not yet cited are still good redirects, and this should encourage borderline cases to be dealt with at RfD rather than speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is much too broad. There are many cases where a word is mentioned in an article, but is not a suitable redirect. The expression "British-brokered" occurs in the article Adolf Hitler, but it would be absurd to make British-brokered into a redirect to that article. An exaggerated example? Perhaps, but once we have categorical statements like "a redirect should not be deleted under this criteria if the term is mentioned in the target article" in policies, it is not long before someone or other uses them unreasonably. My own preference is not to have any instruction-creep here at all. Most often, an administrator is capable of using common sense, and I see no reason to think that the exceptions are any less common than the unhelpful uses of such a clause would be if it were included in the policy, quite apart from the general preference to keep policies as short and simple as possible. If, however, there is to be a change to the wording, it has to be much less categorical, and allow much more room for common sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why my initial suggestion used the phrase "plausible search terms" and linked to WP:RNEUTRAL. This is not instruction creep, just extending the guidance around the existing policy regarding how the "and serve no other purpose" part of the criteria interacts with redirects as it is too often being interpreted incorrectly at present. "British-brokered" as a redirect to Adolf Hitler is a complete irrelevance here as it would not be subject to G10 under any conceivable interpretation - it would still be subject to speedy deletion under R3. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was objecting to the proposed "This does not apply to redirects if the term is used in the target article", not to your original proposal, which is better, though I still think it is too categorical, as it could be read as meaning that any "terms used on the target page" are ineligible. You are right that the Hitler example was not totally relevant: I was just trying to illustrate the idea that a term used in an article might be unsuitable as a redirect. However, the point I was trying to make is still valid, and here is an example that could be considered under G10: The expression "fascist dictators" occurs in the article Winston Churchill, but fascist dictators would not be a suitable redirect to it. As for instruction creep, yes it is: every time a policy or guideline has one more little bit added to it, on top of the last little bit that was added, on top of the one before that, that is instruction creep: whether this particular piece of instruction creep is justified or not is another question. I agree with your point that G10 is sometimes used for valid redirects, but no matter how the policy is worded, it will sometimes be used in ways that you and I think are wrong, and I still think that it would be best to leave things as they are. However, if the wording is to be changed, I prefer something more like your original suggestion than the later versions, but phrased to avoid the possibility of its being read too broadly. Maybe "Redirects from plausible search terms are not eligible under this criterion. For example, a term used on the target page to refer to its subject is often a plausible redirect. - see WP:RNEUTRAL." (And yes, I do know that is longer than any other version, apparently going against my opposition to instruction creep. However, if we are to add clarification then we need to do it in a way that minimises risk of the clarification being misused.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, an editor went ahead and changed the wording, citing "per talk page" as justification in the edit summary, and the wording used was "Note that a redirect should not be deleted under this criteria if the term is mentioned in the target article." That is even more categorical than the suggestions above, and I can't see any way of reading it that doesn't mean that any "terms used on the target page" are ineligible. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well for redirects to be speedy deleted under criterion G10 they need to be both (offensive/disparaging/threatening/intimidating/harrassing) and (serve no other purpose). Very few terms that appear in an article will meet both these requirements, but as you point out some will do (fascist dictators as an implausible redirect to any single person, fascist dictator on the other hand pointing to someone who was not a fascist dictator would very much be G10 territory). I take your point therefore about categoricalness, and that the addition made to the policy page was both wrong and premature. With the very pedantic exception of the full stop before the hyphen (there should be at most one punctuation mark here but any of full stop, comma or dash are fine) I'm happy with your suggested wording. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no further comments in the next day or so I will add the following to the supporting text of criterion G10: Redirects from plausible search terms are not eligible under this criterion. For example, a term used on the target page to refer to its subject is often a plausible redirect.. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement

I'm not a regular here, so forgive me if I'm walking a well-trodden path. Obviously non-free images (or other media files) seems too open a door. I recently came across an image tagged as F9 (without a url) that looked professional quality and had no metadata, and had been tagged on that basis. I couldn't find the image on Google or Tineye, so I removed the tag, and the uploader later stated that he/she used an on-line editor which left no metadata. Now, I can't be sure that the image wasn't copyright, but I don't think that suspicion alone is a ground for tagging. Should a url or other evidence (watermark or similar) be obligatory? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were correct and I think the rule is already clear on that - "Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files." Requiring a URL is a bit on the instruction creepy side - sometimes things can be unambiguous copyright infringements even if there isn't a URL you can point to (e.g. an obvious screenshot from a TV show). --B (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions

I've unclosed this. I whole-heartedly agree with the shenanigans discussion below. If we are going to authorize admins to delete pages with minimal review (which is what speedy deletion is), then we need to do this right. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In the above discussion, Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new criterion: abandoned article drafts, a suggestion for a new speedy criterion G13 was made. This had some support, but the (correct) remark that a simple talk page discussion can't decide was made. So I propose the following for this RfC:

G13: Rejected Articles for creation submissions that have not been edited in over a year Fram (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. I wouldn't mind doing this after 3 or 6 months instead of a year, but I can live with a year. There are currently more than 90,000 declined AfC submissions in Category:Declined AfC submissions, including thousands of advertisements, hundreds of BLP and detected copyright violations, and many thousands of articles that don't fit a current speedy criterion but don't have any chance of ever becoming an article. We could start to ProD or MfD the lot, but that would put unnecessary strains on those processes for little to no actual gain. Making them speedy deletable would keep this process lightweight and easy. Pages that have been deleted for this reason can always be resurrected or userfied if necessary, but this will be the exception, most are well and truly abandoned. Fram (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this would, at a very rough count, affect initially some 50,000 pages, and then about 100 new ones per day. This indicates why adding them to the existing structures like MfD or ProD may cause problems. Fram (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support provided that the 50,000 pages are dealt with in such a way that the deletion log is not overwhelmed. Ideally also this criterion should be mentioned when submissions are declined. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Its extremely rare but for once I actually agree with Fram. I think a year is generous personally and would think 6 months is more than enough. Kumioko (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support these pages have little encyclopedic value, aren't being maintained, and could contain all kinds of problematic material. 50,000 pages would completely overwhelm PROD. I would be happy to support a shorter time period. Hut 8.5 14:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I'd also support a shorter time, 6 months at the most. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No brainer. Would also support shorter time frames, 6 months seems more than reasonable. If this passes, I'd be happy to create a bot task to take care of the deletions. Just contact me. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 15:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the expectation that we should be particularly liberal in granting refund requests on these deletions. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I indicated above, this is not my first choice, but I will go with it as consensus is against my preferred option. However, I don't like the year time limit. In fact, of the eight supports so far, six of us have stated that we would be happy with less so consensus seems to be against a year. In fact all six of us have indicated that we would be happy with less than six months ("I wouldn't mind doing this after 3 or 6 months instead of a year", "3 or 6 months", "6 months is more than enough", "6 months at the most", "6 months seems more than reasonable" + myself), so how about three months? A page that has not been edited in that much time is probably not going to be, and exceptional cases can, of course, be restored on request. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support at 3, 6 or 12 months, with very little difference in preference in that range. As Monty845 suggests. In most cases, I'd support liberal REFUND-by-request, I'd imagine that most of the other cases would qualify for other CSD. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suppor 6 or 12 month, (3 months is to short), Recreate on request. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with preference for the 6 month term. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - suggest 6 months, 12 months is almost as good (3 months is too short a time frame IMO) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's a lot of copyvio, libel, nonsense, etc. in these that can only bring trouble. I assume this proposal also applies to the old-style AfCs by date like Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-05-03. Kilopi (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd go for the 12 month time - there could be a change later to 6 if things are building up too much - and there are few returnees. I would think that three could be workable if clearly pointed out in the start-up page - it might make people concentrate more. I am increasingly getting the impression that people out there think they only need to post a title and a name or a single sentence, and magically a team of wiki brownies will fill out all the rest. 12 months for now and see how it goes. Copyvio can be got rid of already, as can attack, but this will cut the amount that needs checking. Peridon (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Oppose, shouldn't the real question be whether the subject is actually notable or not? I am OK with stubs, although fully realized articles are of course preferred.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Who exactly is going to bother to sort through 90,000 articles to find the handful that might be notable? Hut 8.5 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLEANUP is relevant here. The question is whether those subjects are notable or not, if they are not notable, then no article for creation should have been started in the first place; if they are notable, stubs are just as worthy as a starting point for content regarding the notable subject as anything else. Of course we want to work on those articles to get them to become quality content, but some of the greatest things, can start out small.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLEANUP is relevant only to articles that already exist in mainspace and have been sent to AFD, not drafts that nobody is ever going to finish - remember that the whole point here is that the person who created the draft has not touched it in over a year. Roger (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Do we have any stats on how often these old AFC submissions are revisited? I would prefer 12 months just to be on the safe side, but 6 months is also fine, I guess. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Prefer 12 months. 6 months is OK. Uneasy about 3 months. Note that while G13 applies after a long wait, all other G criteria may be applied nearly immediately.
I still recommend that if A10 (duplicates an existing article) would apply, that the page should be redirected to the existing article immediately. This is for the benefit of the author. If the AfC becomes old enough for G13, that's OK.
I would still like it to be mandatory to notify the talk page of the AfC creator on deletion by G13, if the AfC creator was a registered user account. Scottywong, would that be a problem? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any expansion into userspace. Abandoned IP AfC submissions are VERY different to a registered user's user space. The recently proposed U4 was rejected, alongside support for this G13. Old abandoned userspace stuff should be replaced with Template:Inactive userpage blanked. MfD nominations for others' user subpage drafts have a very poor track record. If people don't understand that this proposal is for old AfCs and not userspace, then should we write that in big? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support common sense. --Rs chen 7754 06:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but Note: Cleaning these up automatically is entirely fine. I would also point out that copyright violations sometimes manage to slip trough, yet after a decline no one may ever look at the page again (Thus leaving a page with legal problems). However, i would point out that editors sometimes revisit their declined article's months after the decline. In part this is due to the backlog being 3 ish weeks right now (Thus people may cease checking often) - but regardless of the reason resubmissions of old pages are quite common under 6 months of age; and only a few days ago i received a question regarding a page i declined 8 months ago. As for savable old pages - the current setup makes this near impossible due to the sheer amount of garbage submitted; searching trough the refuse pile for a gem simply isn't cost effective. I suppose it might be feasible if the AFCH were extended with an "May be decent" checkbox that flags pages as possibly decent. Such an article may still end up in the refuse pile, but at least anyone searching for things to improve would have some means of finding a possible gem. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and expand to include all abandoned userspace drafts, including userfied deleted articles. Sandstein 15:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems reasonable, logical, and sensible. — Cirt (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if after 12 months someone wants to write about the same topic, more often than not it's another editor starting from scratch anyway. There may be 20% viable article topics among the drafts we'll delete, but how often is such an abandoned draft actually turned into a valid article? That's far less than 1%, I'll wager. Huon (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support at any 3 months or + time frame. KTC (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support without reservations, AfC is drowning in crap, clearing the "overburden" would be a huge relief. Roger (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for >1 year. The way to do it, to alleviate the very valid concerns DGG has presented below, would be to set up a system where, for example, every submission made in January 2013 would be placed on a list in January 2014 saying they would be up for consideration February 1, 2014. That would give each round a month of time for interested Wikipedians to take a look and salvage what can be salvaged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, is there any reason why this has to be a CSD criterion instead of just WikiProject policy? If there's community-wide consensus for the action in general, it seems a lot simpler to have it done in-house than to invent a new speedy category that doesn't apply elsewhere. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that WP:AfC is not owned by the WikiProject, and AfC submitters are not WikiProject members. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We really need to get rid of our myriad abandoned drafts, and a year time limit reduces to virtually nothing the chance that we'll delete something anyone remembers or cares about. We can always undelete something upon request. I do agree, however, with Amory — we really don't need to do this as a G13. Let's make this an approved kind of G6 deletion. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and expand to include userspace drafts and userfied content as well. MER-C 02:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for AFC submissions and userspace drafts. However... could we maybe do this like with the 7-day delay feature seen with some of the F-series criteria? That way if someone really wants to rescue a long-forgotten submission, they have a week to add a few paragraphs and save it; if the user doesn't care, they could always just G7 it. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the 7-day delay; if the speedy deletion process is going to be run by a bot anyway, this would create minimal extra work with a net benefit. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It will definitely help cleanup AfC. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no problem with this. AFC is in dire need of cleanup. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, yet I would really like this to be postponed for a month if possible: I would like to see AfC reformed completely, and a first step for me would be gathering statistics on drafts - which will be far harder if they are deleted. (i'm specifically looking for the %resubmitted after decline n, and the %accepted after resubmit n, and if I want to get fancy, find a way to correlate to time it took to review - if this data is somewhere, cool bananas, I want in!) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and suggest that six months is more than enough. It is a totally arbitrary that an article submitted straight to mainspace can be speedily deleted for lack of notability but if it gets submitted via AfC it currently remains there indefinitely. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a long time helper and script developer for the project. mabdul 14:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose making this a speedy process. I'd like them deleted. I don't think that there's any good reason to do it under CSD, which is the "any admin can delete instantly on sight" process. Since there's no urgency here, I think it would actually be best to have a bot tag them for PROD in batches (maybe 100 a day, which will take more than one year to clear out the many-years-old backlog, but which is just as sustainable as doing the same thing with the bot adding a CSD tag), after giving the original editors notice that they've got a week to get it fixed up, or it's game over. This isn't about admin time (because I estimate that an admin going to CAT:CSD and clicking the delete button a hundred times takes exactly as long as an admin going to the expired PROD cat and clicking that same delete button); this is about not biting the newbies and not having to waste time explaining to them why they received zero notice of the problem. It would also have the small advantage of not burying hoaxes and attack pages and other serious CSDs in a pile of unimportant AFCs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply unworkable. The PROD system is often overloaded as it is: many of the declined things would automatically fit the CSD criteria that exist already, and the backlog would increase far quicker than it would decrease, even if you increased your 100 number to something much bigger (which really would then overload the PROD system.) WP:BITE is completely irrelevant, because if the draft has been stale for a year, the chances of that user being active are VERY small (and if they are, they're no longer a new user...) - and if you're worried about it, then you can make this bot send warnings to the account that say "if you don't edit this in the next month, it will be deleted". In addition to this, giving an extra week to an article that has sat untouched for a year is incredibly pointless. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Lukeno94, shifting the overload around is not a solution at all. The pile of abandoned drafts needs to be deleted - that's not disputed by anyone (yet!) - so anything other than getting on with it as efficiently as possible, is pointless "moving the deck chairs while the ship is sinking". Roger (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between PROD and speedy deletion is that PROD allows time for review by other editors. The more articles we tag for PROD the less review each one will get and the less effective the process will be. PROD (and BLP PROD) was responsible for deleting about 20,000 articles last year. If we tag 100 rejected AfC submissions a day then the number of articles being deleted by PROD would roughly triple. And even tripling it would not be able to cope with the problem here, as at that rate it would take about two and a half years just to clear the existing backlog. Hut 8.5 12:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tossing one's yard trash over the fence into the neighbour's yard does not make the trash vanish. Shifting this overload from AFC to PROD solves absolutely nothing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It would eliminate abandoned copyvios and potential BLP violations. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as the original proposer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will help with the backlog. Rcsprinter (talk) @ 11:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, would also like to see it expanded to userfied pages, though. Lectonar (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course as original nominator. --B (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot task

If approved I recommend seeing if someone like Anomie would setup a bot task to automate the deletion of these. Perhaps an initial one time sweep of the ones over a year and then see what that leaves us for submission to CSD. Also, I would ask someone like MZMcbride with toolserver/Sql access to the database to create a report for these. Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any existing deletion criteria where the actual deletion is performed by a bot? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:7SeriesBOT deletes pages under U1 and G7. Ryan Vesey 20:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably would be best to only have the bot tag the articles, but leave the actual deletion to a reviewing admin. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, for at least the initial bot run it should do the deletion too, manually reviewing the ~90,000 drafts that are currently deletable under G13 is simply not managable (that number grows by 40-50 every single day). Any deletion can be reversed on request in the highly unlikely event that the author of a draft abandoned a year ago suddenly returns from the dead. Once the 90,000 "overburden" has been cleared the 40-50 daily deletions can be done manually (after the bot has tagged them). Roger (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Roger. Its likely a small number will need to be undeleted but there are just too many to review every one. Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the 40-50 articles per day deleted by the bot as well. To go through each article and check the history takes time, and if this task can be reliably performed by a bot I don't see the need to bother humans with it. Admin eyes at CAT:CSD would be better reserved for cases that require human judgement, like A7 and G11. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to see a bot tag about 10 articles per hour during those times CAT:CSD isn't heavily backlogged (say, don't tag if there are more than 50 items in the cat), until the backlog is empty. If we decide to make them eligible for deletion, it doesn't have to mean we have to tag and delete them right now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. One of the original concerns was that something worthwhile might be missed. By having a human pull the trigger on deletion, we at least prevent this. Having a bot tag the old articles in an orderly, predictable fashion (oldest to newest) over a couple of months would reduce that concern. At least there would be a chance that something with potential gets saved. --B (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

data and a substitute proposal

I've unhatted this sub-section per comments by DGG (talk · contribs) below. Please note I'm the same 64.40.5*.*** that has commented in the rest of this page, so everybody is free to revert if they think this was impropoer. 64.40.54.108 (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I seem to be in the position of opposing my own proposal, but what I suggested was much more nuanced than this. I have now made an analysis of 170 declined articles taken equally from continuous sections at three parts of the alphabet. 84 of these were more than one year old. Of these 84, 21 of them were possible articles, including 6 needing only minor editing and 6 that could immediately be merged or turned into redirects; the other 9 would need more substantial editing but would then make adequate articles. (for comparison, within the year, there were 25 probably acceptable in some manner out of the 86, a very similar proportion.) This would support a 6 month period instead of a 12 (contrary to what I would have predicted).

This means, that if we speedy-delete all such articles, we will have at 25% error rate, This is too high. A speedy deletion criterion should ideally have a 5% positive error rate, though in practice we accept 10%. It certain rules out using a bot. It also rules out doing more than, say 50 a day so that they actually could be looked at.

What I propose instead as a substitute is , a speedy deletion criterion for 'All AfCs that have not been edited in six months, and would be speedy deletable if they were articles, and those that have not been edited for six months and do not meet a speedy criterion be proddable. That would give more of a chance to rescue those that could be rescued .

DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this sounds good. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support agreed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with rephrasing - the stuff about Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is currently confusingly written. Also, let's make sure that admins cite both this new criteria and the article criteria it qualified for. So:

"Articles for creation that have not been edited in six months and would be speedy deletable if they were articles. Administrators deleting such articles should list both this criteria and the relevant article deletion criteria in their deletion summaries. If such a page has seen no edits in six months but does not qualify for speedy deletion, it may be deleted through the Proposed Deletion process instead." Ego White Tray (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, way too complicated for very little benefit. And AfC submissions that could be turned into redirects are hardly useful, what's the point of having an old AfC redirect to a mainspace article? DGG, can you list the 15 pages out of the 84 older than a year that could with some effort be turned into articles? That would give us a better idea of what could be lost by automatic deletion. Oh, and ruling out doing more than 50 a day would be really problematic, as that would only increase the backlog; more than 50 submissions are declined and abandoned every day. Fram (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I have taken Category:AfC submissions by date/10 March 2012, which would under the original proposal be ready for emptying (well, deletion of the abandoned ones at least, not deletion of the accepted ones of course).

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/(spool / reel / thread) box: could with a lot of effort perhaps be turned into an article of borderline notability
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2012 Dallas Tennis Classic exists as 2012 Dallas Tennis Classic, no need to keep it
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2012 Jalisco Open exists as 2012 Jalisco Open
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taxi 24/7- A Voice Based Social Network is speedy deletable as an ad
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ade Babtunde, Triple Jump doesn't seem to meet WP:NSPORTS (a triple jumper with a PB of 15.56 as of 2011 is still some way removed from the top of his field)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alberto Adarve is speedy deletable A7
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alvin klein Santos is speedy deletable A7
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arizona Nurse Amanda Trujillo would never be a viable article (soapboxing)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aujla Dhak; unverifiable, and when stripping out the POV, hardly anything worth saving would remain anyway
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Australian Business For Sale seems unlikely to survive an AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Benoit Michel is hard to judge, may be or not be notable
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bigfoot Monster of the Ice wouldn't survive an AfD
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/C.S.I. Bain Matriculation Higher Secondary School seems to be a copyvio from [2]
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Canadia is a hoax
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Capism wouldn't survive an AfD (and is probably a copyvio, haven't checked)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cassandra (Cass) Courtney wouldn't survive an AfD
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charik Crew should be speedy deleted as a G10
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chevecki is a speedy G11 candidate
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Bible Study may perhaps be a viable article candidate
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Computer networ Technology program at Renton Technical college wouldn't survive an AfD
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darren K Hawkins may be a viable article candidate
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dj Paurik The Splendid Djs is a speedy G11 candidate
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dominic Scott has already been A7 speedy deleted in a live incarnation of this article
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Abdul Ruff is a copyvio from his own biography on wordpress
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/enke: Make Your Mark is a G11 candidate
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/erratica would never survive an AfD
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Faisal Alanbaei is an A7
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Federal Hotel, Melbourne is borderline whether it would survive an AfD (a building considered for protection, but deemed not interesting enough and then demolished)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Find My Recycler wouldn't survive an AfD (probably A7 candidate)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Forevermore (OPM Album) exists as Forevermore (David Archuleta album)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fullbridge Program seems doubtful that it would survive an AfD, would need a complete rewrite anyway
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Furlough Fridays (band) wouldn't survive an AfD

So that means that of these 32 articles, 6 may, perhaps, with luck and loads of work, be an article (although for most of them this seems doubtful, none are on obviously notable subjects); I have bolded these above for your convenience. On the other hand, we have some pages that should have been deleted ages ago (copyvios, G10 attack pages). To go through these articles in this manner is a lot of work, something which no one seems to be prepared to do (or at least no one has been doing until now). To put this burden on people as a requirement for deletion is counterproductive to say the least. In the original proposal, everyone who wants to has six months or a year to go through these pages and rescue whatever warrants rescuing; after that, no more effort is wasted on them and they are summarily deleted (with no objection to undeletion if anyone wants to work on them anyway afterwards). In the second proposal, every page would need to be checked contentwise. Who is going to make that effort? This proposal would in reality mean that these pages would stay around forever, just like now, without anyone actually trying to salvage anything from them anyway. Fram (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - 6 months is more than enough on its own for anyone who wants to do this rescue work (let alone 12). Adding this clause in may as well defeat the whole point of this speedy deletion idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as too time-consuming and unworkable. This proposal would require reviewers to examine articles individually and decide whether they meet any speedy deletion criteria. Even for obvious things like copyright violations this would be time-consuming. For articles which don't obviously qualify for the article speedy deletion criteria the reviewer would have to do things like checking for potential sources, which is even more time-consuming. It doesn't seem as though anyone is willing to do all this work, and even if there are their efforts could be better used elsewhere.
Then there are the logistics of the proposal. A rate of 50 articles a day is simply unrealistic. There are 90,000 declined AfC submissions at the moment, and at that rate it would take 5 years even to process the existing backlog, never mind all the submissions added in the meantime. Counting up the articles in Category:Declined AfC submissions which were declined for a reason that isn't handled through CSD (plot summary, dictionary definitions, essays, unsourced articles, neologisms, news reports, foreign languages, "not suitable for Wikipedia", non-neutral and the various varieties of non-notable) produces about 75,000. Many of those will qualify for A7, but sorting through these would certainly swamp the PROD process, which deleted about 20,000 articles in the whole of last year (including BLP PROD). Any contested PRODs will have to be handled through WP:MFD, which isn't equipped to for anything like this. Hut 8.5 11:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose I can see making some provision for someone who comes along and lays claim to one which is salvageable, though in practice if anyone cared about rescuing these, they would have been promoted already, n'est pas? Even if the material could be made into a serviceable article, I don't see keeping the text around in the hopes that someone, some day might come along and finish starting it. The benefits of reducing the clutter far outweighs the loss of article text whose potential is thus far unrealized and whose history shows that it is almost certain to remain in that state. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with regret. There's no interest in reviving even a tiny fraction of the best of those drafts, WP:Abandoned Drafts is for all intents and purposes dead, the articles in Fram's list above which were recreated were likely recreated without the new author knowing about the previous draft. These AfCs are not visible to searching, and so they are, for any practical purpose already deleted. Leaving them in limbo is a problem, copyright and attack problems are too frequent.

Which is not to say that there shouldn't be some efforts at salvage. But since salvaging all of these is (practically speaking) impossible, wouldn't it make sense to start with the newest ones? That is, the fresh AfC submissions for which the authors might still be around? Maybe focus on retaining those new editors and their efforts, rather than those who are long gone from the project? --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have no problem with generous refund instead. This proposal is complexity without real benefit. KTC (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reopening

I don't think this has been given adequate consideration. People challenged my numbers. For the survey, I just recorded the numbers. But in addition, I've worked also on those in my own field, Academic people and things, where I looked at every single item in the category. This may be a category where there are more wrongfully non-accepted articles than the others, probably because people tried to judge using only the GNG, and not the alternative WP:PROF and WP:Author. I found 120 out of the 377 that can be rescued. About 2/3 of the 120 older than one year; again, this may be a higher percentage than usual because it contain a good many really carelessly reviewed ones from the earlier years, I'm going to list a dozen or so below to indicate the extent to which we are likely to throw away decent articles if we do not look at them carefully. This is not a selected list of highlights; I'm going thru my alphabetic list from the top & selecting those older than a year sicne the last edit (alphabetically the way they were listed, without the sort key that would be applied to articles)

You might ask, since I had identified them, why didn't I move them to mainspace? The reason is that they first have to be checked for copyvio; I've slipped up once or twice here in the past and I do not want to do it again. I'll have to check one or two a day. Fortunately, even if they get deleted, I can still check them--that, after all, is why I asked for the mop in the first place, and you can check back to see the vote. I could proceed differently, which is accept first and then go back to fix if challenged, but I do not work that way. It makes work for other people, work that in this field I can do relatively well and quickly.

(I'm going to do another sample in another field I work in tomorrow or Tuesday) I will also tomorrow try to answer every one of the objections above---or , more likely most of them. It's of course obvious that some groups of the drafts can be disposed of very quickly, and I tried to make the distinction. Look at my deletion log to see what I've been doing by G11 the last week or so.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A. Thomas Kraabel There are enough books listed already--just needs a check that the bio is not copyvio--if it is, I'll rewrite it.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abbas Amanat 23 books authored--the article obviously has to be expanded. Full prof. at Yale
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andreas Lixl also many books, tho it's hard finding reviews for older German books; it's sometimes necessary to check print indexes.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andreas Lixl not an academic, but there's a nyt reference and an honorary degree.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Kirkcaldy Fellow, British Psychological Society.May need rewriting for copyvio or paraphrase.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Yesner Another one that will need to be rewritten.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cássio van den Berg Taxonomist who has described dozens of species. All such have been considered notable in repeated AfDs. Refs need to be rewritten so they cite his work, not WP.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prof. Chitra Weddikkara Notable under WP:CREATIUVE (work at MOMA). It needs rewriting--I suspect the reviewer didnWikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prof. Chitra Weddikkara actually notice the key content.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Stabler Full prof. UCLA ; probably notable , but needs citation figures
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Domingo Fernandez Agis Some of it still needs translation, but the books should meet the requirements, tho its a difficult field to find reviews. The reviewer ignored WP:PROF.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grant S. Nelson Named professorship. Reviewer mentioned WP:PROf but may not have know what it said.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gilbert Ling This one will be interesting, because he is fringe--but he was ed. of major journal. No indication WP:PROF was noticed.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/József Böröcz Member of his national academy. Otherwise I'd be a little doubtful.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Julia Bell (author) notable as author, and the reviews were in the article. Might need revision for possible copyvio.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Juan Carlos Mejuto This will be tricky. Negative BLP, but well sourced.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liesbet Hooghe Named professorship at major research university.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leonardo Vittorio Arena Apparently a major Italian scholar--again, book reviews are hard to document for nonEnglish books.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tarkan Maner Main notability is CEO of Wyse, sources present.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wallace E. Oates Distinguished Professorship at Maryland. Multiple books. This will be the easiest of the lot.

I'm less than halfway through; I could go on, but I'm getting sleepy.

I will just comment that Fram found 6 of her 24 potentially article-worthy and not yet written. That's the same figure as I found. T=Fram interprets it as only 25 , therefore insignificant, I interpret it exactly the opposite. 24% yield + a similar number already written is as good as we get of really worthwhile articles no matter how they're submitted. That too is what I found. The older ones are no worse than the newer.

And finding a useful redirect for something less than notable is worth doing. Redirects for creation is an important and valid part of the overall AfC project. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I will just comment that Fram found 6 of her 24 potentially article-worthy and not yet written." No, I found 6 out of 32, not 24, to be not immediately nukable; I doubt that all 6 topics would be notable in the end, and most of these needed so much work that starting from scratch would be just as easy. And I don't get your "redirects" comment, what is the purpose of having a redirect from an AfC to an already existing topic, probably created between the AfC submission and now? If people haven't found the article before starting the AfC, what is the chance that they will find the AfC redirect instead? Fram (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with this approach is the question of who is going to do all the work. Obviously it took some effort to find these articles from the categories. If they are going to be moved to mainspace they will need somebody to search for additional references, rewrite parts of the article, perform copyvio checks, and so on. There is no significant body of people willing to do this work, and closing this discussion with a result of "cleanup the articles and move them to mainspace" would effectively be a resolution to do nothing. On the other hand even the possibly salvageable articles in this list have potential copyright and BLP problems. (Incidentally I don't think academics are going to be representative of all declined AfC submissions.) Hut 8.5 10:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not even certain that there's enough hands to tread water on that backlog, nevermind cut into it. And if I'm right that that is the case, I strongly urge people willing to help rescue articles from that backlog to consider starting from the newest end, not the latest--the articles aren't going to be any better or worse, or at least not significantly, but the editors who wrote them might still be around. Working from the new end instead of the old saves just as many articles, *and* helps editor retention in a way that working from the oldest does not. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We cleared up the unsourced blps, which were much harder problems. A few people can clear up the easier half of the backlog in a year I can easily delete 20 a day while doing other things, say 100 a week=5,000/yr/person. 7 people=1/2 the backlog This half, whether 12 months old or 6 months old, or for that matter 1 week old, are really extremely easy to decide on and determine to be hopeless. The other half need some thought; what I am proposing is to delete the obvious, and not delete the others--not to immediately move all the potential ones into mainspace. That would indeed take more than a year . I imagine that will be done as people work on their subjects. In about 6 months, I expect to do all the academics I found--not necessarily make the articles, but make the 2/3 of them that I think are worth making. (there are other academics, scattered throughout the categories, which I have not yet identified)
1. Looking at the discussion below, the dilemma is, that we can either do nothing and keep all the junk, or do everything without thought, and throw out the 10 or 15 or 20 % of potential articles. But this is a false dilemma, there's a middle way: to find a rough way of sorting the many likely deletes from the smaller number of possibles.
2. I see us giving in to despair as we look at backlogs--these, and all the other ones of even more importance, such as the million WP articles that need updating, & the probably 100 or 200 thousand that are overly promotional. The principle of crowd sourcing will work to improve them ass it works to create them. We're a lot better than we were when I came here 6 years ago, and it's due to patient work. It takes work, which we know how to do, but it also takes being patient about it, which is a little harder around here.
Fram, I think I wasn't clear what I meant about redirects. I mean the AfC, tho not conceivably an article, can be edited into a redirect and saved as such. This is the same as deleting it and making a redirect from the title, but it preserves the content if anyone ever wants to develop it. . But even if we decide that saving the content behind the redirect isn't worth the trouble, the occasion should betaken for making a redirect.
Looking at all these in various categories, the real problem is the past and ongoing incompetent patrolling. Too many people have been rejecting articles without clearly indicating the critical problems--confusing the categories for screening, and much worse, discouraging users because they receive unclear and contradictory messages. Again, the analogy is unsourced BLPs. We did two things: we cleared up the old backlog manually, despite the great work involved,, and we took effective steps to prevent a new backlog accumulating by the adoption of BLP Prod. I wasn't all that happy with BLP Prod initially, but it does work, without too many errors--thanks to the relatively few people who patrol PROD and sort out the sourceable that are worth sourcing. There was a proposal at the time to immediately delete all the old unsourced BlPs. It didn't pass, fortunately. Does anyone involve have numbers for how many of them were kept/deleted/ redirected/merged? Even we saved 20%, that was worth it. that project was a good example. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced BLPs project was a major undertaking. The issue was discussed on our highest profile noticeboards and we were able to use watchlist notices to get people interested when the cleanup rate slowed. We had a number of people working on it, and even once the easy articles had been removed the effort still fixed about 50 articles a day. (The most highly active editors put in an awful lot of work.) The early cleanup effort benefited from the fact that many of the "unsourced" BLPs did in fact cite references, and it was easy to identify these through automated processes. Of the initial 50,000 unsourced BLPs about 16,000 fell into this category. Even with all of these advantages it took the better part of two years to get the backlog cleared. I don't have any actual figures for the number of articles that were preserved, but I do have a list of articles in the category, and it's obvious that the vast majority are still blue links.
As for articles for creation, which has a larger backlog, it seems you're the only editor volunteering to do this work, it would be harder to get editors involved in the project as the issue isn't so high profile, and some of the advantages unsourced BLPs enjoyed are not there. Furthermore it doesn't seem as though most of the pages would be salvageable, and the cleanup effort could be better used elsewhere. You note above that you would like someone to check these pages for copyright problems. As our text copyright processes are all heavily backlogged this wouldn't be a good use of resources. There are over 200,000 existing articles tagged as having no references, and sourcing efforts could best be deployed there. Hut 8.5 11:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Apologies for the confusion, but it has been brought to my attention that several details still need to be worked out. In particular:

Should a new G13 criterion be created, or should this be added as an approved use of G6?

and

Should a 7-day delay be used, so that the page is first tagged (and the creator notified), and after 7 days of no action the page is deleted?

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the 7-day delay. It is unfair to destroy what are in most cases good-faith creations, and doing so may raise the ire of active contributors who have old, rejected submissions lying around. Even if the deleted submissions are available via REFUND, it would still be polite to give users a chance to salvage their work, or even start improving it. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I also suggest that the deletion summary used for these deletions provides a clear link to REFUND (or perhaps to a specialised instructions page), to help users retrieve their deleted submissions should they ever wish to. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support the 7-day delay, it does no harm and is good for maintaining editor relations per This that and the other. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose making this part of G6. That criterion is already overloaded with things it wasn't intended to cover so adding all these too it will make abuses and misuses of it much harder to track. Additionally, the very specific content this covers and the 7-day delay (if it passes) are not something that applies (or should apply) to any other G6 deletion so it would make a poor fit anyway. Better to have two simple criteria than one complicated one. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support 7-day delay per TTO and my comment in the above thread. Oppose merging into G6 per Thryduulf. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might be missing something, but putting a 7 day delay on it takes it out of CSD and puts it into PROD. Speedy usually means instant for certain things, or a short term delay by admins who think something might get somewhere if the author gets past the first sentence. A mandatory 7 day delay isn't 'SPEEDY'. It's a Proposed Deletion, possibly a new form as PROD-BLP is - maybe PROD-AFC. Peridon (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that this category of deletion isn't going to affect editor relations. It's for clearing away the stuff that people who flitted in one window and out the other have left behind. (Like the little bird in the lighted hall...) These editors have tried something; it didn't work, so they've gone to play elsewhere (or been jailed, run over, unexpectedly married or spontaneously combusted). If they haven't touched it in 12 months, and they DO get released, divorced or repaired in hospital, and want to try again, we can restore. No problems. Peridon (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both. This should not be an operator overload of the already bloated G6, and it most certainly does not need a waiting period. As long as a REFUND link is displayed in the deletion summary, there is absolutely no reason to beleive that an AfC that has sat untouched for over a year somehow needs to be given more of a chance. See also, Peridon's comments, above. I would, however, support a {{subst:G13-notice}} template with REFUND instructions for the user page of AfC contributors. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 12:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- see {{db-afc-notice}}, please improve it. In particular I think we need a subpage of WP:REFUND with specific instructions on what to do for people who want their AFC submissions restored... the normal REFUND page is just too confusing for this purpose. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I made a special version of template:refund/G13, and then put the code in the notice template. I then changed the link to make a new section where the template code can simply be pasted and saved without any modification. If a user can select, copy, paste, and click a link, they can get a userfied REFUND. That look good to you? PS, you definitely want to go in and do the "safesubst:" stuff before rollout, because I've never figured out how that works or what it does. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both, as said above, if you make it a seven day delay, then it is just a ProD. The idea is that this is a very lightweight, fast process, not something that needs a lot of extra hurdles. Fram (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I object to this logic. Look, for example, at {{di-no source}}. It is a speedy deletion template (F4, if memory serves me correctly), but it operates with a delay of several days. Same goes for {{db-t3}}. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those, I can't see why they're in speedy. They're proposed deletions. The only difference is that the author isn't allowed to remove them without having rectified the problem. They should be prods like prod-BLP - no-one not allowed to remove tag if not sorted. Speedy is speedy. Can happen any moment, depending. Most of us that work CSD leave some things for a while to see if anything more happens, but take out other things on sight of the tag. Peridon (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both don't see any particular need for a delay, as AfC is predominantly used by unregistered or very new editors who won't be monitoring old rejected submissions. The number submitted by active editors will be very small. G6 doesn't need to be made more complicated. Hut 8.5 12:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose nesting G13 inside G6. Deleting someone's submission is not "routine maintenance". On the seven day delay... This sound like giving a seven day notice on every page that it is about to be deleted per G13, which means that there have been no edits for a year. No firm opinion on this. A 7 day pause may be a good idea on first use of this G13, but I wouldn't expect anyone to notice. I would rather see the first G13 deletion summaries invite editors to report problems here, at WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both - a 7-day notice on an article that hasn't been edited in a year? What's the point of that? That would turn this into a PROD-like method, which consensus is already against, and would overload the system with more pointless red-tape/delays. And there's absolutely no need for G13 to be incorporated into anything else. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the 7-day period is good, and we must ensure that there's a notification placed on the user's talk page. Even if someone has had other things to do than edit Wikipedia lately, they may have email notification that their user talk page has been modified (is that a default, or an option?), and an email to alert them to a message that their draft is up for deletion may trigger them into going back to it. A message to say it has already been deleted will be less likely to bring them back, even if it does explain a way to get it undeleted. PamD 09:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the overloading of G6, it's not a huge deal, but I think it's cleaner, and leads to better tracking, to use a separate criteria. I also weakly oppose the 7-day waiting period, I think it will provide little gain and for a significant increase in process overhead. One commenter above has talked about this being better thought of as a sort of PROD, and well, sure, maybe, but the PROD/BLPPROD process is already layered with errata (the March 18, 2010 cutoff, the difference in lengths of times, the difference in whether they can be removed or not, just to name three) and the tools don't support those differences very well. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implimentation

OK so here we have a proper procedurally correct decision to create a new Speedy criterion "G13" - who, when, how, will it be done? A bot also needs to be tasked to do the actual work. Roger (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already added to WP:CSD by King of Hearts; [3] [4] by me. -- KTC (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that the deletion summary for all G13 deletions links to WP:REFUND/G13? — This, that and the other (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Roger (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template for notifying users about G13 deletions? There should probably be one, especially if they can request undeletion at WP:REFUND. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- {{db-afc-notice}}. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shenanigans

WTF? You can't start a 30 day RfC and close it 28 days early—over the weekend—and call it good when you like/dislike the result at that point. And listing an RfC on WP:CENT for 2 days is no way to gather consensus. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is policy.

Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community.

Many people have not even seen this discussion yet. How are they supposed to participate when the discussion is already hatted? I call shenanigans. 64.40.54.202 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The count at closing was 29 support, and one oppose who was opposing extending into userspace. I think someone decided that WP:SNOW was in the air. Peridon (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the instructions - 30 days is default is because the bot removes the template then. It's a max not a set time. (Discussions can be prolonged by fiddling the datestamp.) There doesn't appear to be a fixed timescale, and this closed discussion was a spinoff from earlier talks. Peridon (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the consensus is so unanimous, a SNOW close is perfectly valid. There's no rule saying that a RFC has to last for 30 days - it can go beyond or below that timeframe. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 days ≠ consensus I know it's tempting to wikilaywer the issue, but the OP clearly indicated that the limited discussion was not consensus—which is true—and started this RfC to gain consensus. Listen folks, I'm all for getting rid of the problematic AfC submissions, but let's do this the right Way. Shutting out the rest of the community after 2 days is not the right way. We need actual consensus. OK? 64.40.54.202 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement that discussions remain open for some length of time purely for the sake of remaining open for a certain length of time. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The discussion received numerous comments during the time it was open, and not one person opposed it. You're not opposing it either. There's no need to reopen the discussion. Hut 8.5 20:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protip: If you're going to try and pose as another person, at least make sure your IP has changed first. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the IP is trying to pretend to be a different person. "The OP" in their post is presumably Fram. Hut 8.5 21:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That's my fault for not being more specific. 64.40.54.202 (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Adding for the record, everything that is 64.40.5*.*** in the discussions above and pretty much everywhere else on the project is me. I figured the regulars here would know that, as IPs with WP:CLUE don't usually join policy discussions. My contribs are here for anybody that is interested. 64.40.54.202 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I unclosed the discussion. Speedy deletion is a big enough deal that we need to do things right. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 64.40.54.202 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see this section at VPP, which essentially proposed the same thing (just not institutionalized under a new CSD criterion) and looks like snow-no. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I proposed that and the early returns are no, but a couple weeks from now it may be yes. So I'd like to see where it goes. 64.40.54.202 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal had one major difference from this one: Under it, all AfC older than a year would be deleted, not just rejected ones. Marechal Ney (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the initial objection — LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't apply here. It refers to situations such as a group of AFC people deciding at AFC that these submissions should be subject to speedy. Here at WT:CSD is where speedy deletion criteria are decided; decisions made here are meant to affect everything else. Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Village Pump discussion had a radically different view, I think it would be a good idea to keep this open for more than two days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that all the "Oppose" !votes at the Village Pump proposal were posted before the proposal wording was ammended to included the word "declined" (at 23:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)) the proposal was in effect a substantially different one. I would have opposed that proposal (if it had remained open long enough!) but I fully support this one. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

What about bot edits before tagging? Basically, the current proposal says that a bot should tag AFCs for deletion if they've not been edited for a year. Imagine that a bot made an edit yesterday to an AFC that was last touched by a human in 2010; do we want this page to be deletable, or do we have to wait for a year from yesterday? In my opinion, the criterion should exclude pages that were last edited by a non-bot in the past year. I can't see how the tagging bot would distinguish between bot edits and human edits, but we could tag the bot-edited pages manually. Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do bots edit AfC rejections? If they do, they should definitely be excluded from the reckoning. Last touch of a human hand only. Peridon (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that any maintenance edits can be safely excluded, but if a bot is going to automatically be tagging and deleting, then I think you need to be quite conservative, and would recommend only that bot edits be excluded. However, if we're talking about a human being tagging the article, then I would be much more liberal with excluding bots, automated tools (eg AWB), and other maintenance edits (eg categories, stub tags). Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 19:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both of you; I have no clue whether bots edit AFC rejections, and my final sentence is meant to say "bots shouldn't attempt to distinguish between previous bot edits and human edits" while suggesting that we permit humans to tag pages last edited by bots. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a flag for bot edits. Is that available to bots? Even if it is, the follow up would require analyzing the edit history. I'm not sure that the programming involved would be trivial. But if someone takes that on, it would be a standard call available to all bots. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the addition of a {{db-g13}} tag is obviously an edit to the page. That edit must obviously be exempt from the criterion that the page hasn't been edited for a year (so that we don't have to wait for a year until a page tagged with {{db-g13}} can be deleted). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If pages are tagged by a human, then you also need to allow for editing errors - {{G13}} is not a speedy deletion template for example, and people may use something like {{db-multiple}}. In these situations (which shouldn't be numerous) it might just be best to flag them for human review. Also flagged for human review should be any page (or associated talk page) that was edited after the tag was placed. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know if bots would be able to see whether previous editors had bot flags; and what would we do if the sequence was (1) Bot edits page, (2) Bot is de-flagged, (3) AFC deletion bot checks and sees that the previous editor doesn't currently have a bot flag? Much better for the AFC deletion bot to ignore bot-edited pages and allow them to remain until humans can look at them. We really can't have any false positives as long as the bot ignores all pages that have been modified since the deadline started; my whole reason for starting this thread was to ask whether humans should be able to tag the bot-edited pages. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be difficult at all for a bot to see which previous editors were bots. That said, bots sometimes do edit declined AFC pages. In the histories you can sometimes see bots going around getting rid of things that don't belong outside of mainspace, for instance. Theoretically there shouldn't be any bot activities that hits a submission over a year after its last edit, but it wouldn't surprise me. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are always new bot ideas and new tasks and thus getting regularly edits in also very old submissions. But this is only a matter of time when/if the drafts are getting deleted. mabdul 05:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned unsubmitted articles

This speedy deletion criterion is for nominating rejected AfC pages. However, there are probably also some which were abandoned but never submitted for review. Those are presumably neither accepted nor rejected, but they may nevertheless be many years old. What do we do with those? In my opinion, those should be submitted for review in their present shape so that useful articles aren't overlooked. If rejected, they would then be subject to speedy deletion as G13 in 2014. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea how many there are? If there is only a handful then normal processes should be able to handle them. If there are hundreds that would overload review processes unless carefully managed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. If all are submitted for review at the same time, and if there are hundreds or thousands of then, this would probably disrupt the review processes. In that case, it would be better to set up a bot which submits a few of them for review whenever the review backlog isn't too big. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's have a bot submit them gradually; even the worst page shouldn't be deleted until at least one human has checked it. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"whenever the review backlog isn't too big" The backlog of submissions wasn't "cleared" since ages - at the moment there are ~1700 submission in the quee. Feel free us to help us! mabdul 05:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: mass deletion of all articles at WP:AfC

Moved from Wikipedia:VPR § Proposal: mass deletion of all articles at WP:AfC

– 64.40.54.241 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:NAC, I hope you don't think it's too audacious, but this really doesn't need to be open anymore. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: All declined articles at Articles for creation that are over 1 year old—some 90,000 articles—should be mass deleted without further review. 64.40.54.111 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC) added "declined" per comment below. 64.40.54.202 (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No reason to do so. Diego (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, what would be the benefit of doing that? If it's just to try to make things tidier, I can say with some amount of certainty the old submissions pile will likely be a mess either way, so the extra effort required and the added complications of the subsequently non-visible content wouldn't really be warranted. -— Isarra ? 09:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why? How are they hurting Wikipedia, you, anybody, or anything else? Kiltpin (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The consensus at Wikipedia talk:CSD#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions is that only the declined submissions should be deleted. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any submission not declined should be in article space... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The page might never have been submitted. People only review submitted proposals. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this a serious proposal? 64.40.54.111 has been on Wikipedia for less than 24 hours. Kiltpin (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not defending the proposal here, and at the risk of sounding condescending... it's an IP address. Contributors' IPs can change frequently, either due to their Internet Service Providers or simply because they've changed locations. An IP with "one edit" could actually be an experienced Wikipedian with thousands of edits who, for whatever reason, prefers to work anonymously. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I have many thousands of edits myself, and I occasionally edit anonymously as an interesting cultural experiment. I'm often surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) to observe more disrespect for my anonymous contributions and comments, compared to what I experience when logged in. The lesson I learned from this exercise is that it's best to WP:AGF equally to everyone, and don't automatically assume someone is ignorant because they don't log in. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even the deletion of all declined submissions is a bad idea. It would possibly have been fine if every reviewer had done a competent job, but that isn't always the case. --Hegvald (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support for deletion of old AfC topics about only popular culture and other non-academic subjects. Please read the proposal text itself, it speaks of only AfC submissions over one year old. Wer900 • talk 16:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Who, exactly, will define what is and is not an "academic subject"?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-Frankly, I just don't see the payoff. How would such action improve Wikipedia?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does this proposal differ at all from what is already implemented as CSD G13? Is it that this is to delete articles regardless of current work? Why? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G13 requires significant manual labor. Someone must tag, and someone else must delete. As a counterpoint to your question, if all such articles qualify for G13 anyway, why not just have a bot clean them up? (It's rhetorical, don't bother answering, I don't support this proposal either). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - completely pointless!, Davey2010 Talk 03:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. We've got people working on how to go about implementing a G13 criteria to meet this exact problem. This is a jailhouse shiv where a scalpel is being crafted. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The hoard of declined submissions does not present a problem so great that a strategic nuclear option is required. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday/Today the project (so davidwr (talk · contribs) and me) updated the Template:AFC submission. Guess what: it takes a half day to update all pages to add a new category. Moreover this template isn't fully protected and thus we getting on a really rare basis a "confused" and autoconfirmed user adding his submission there - Protection is of course a solution, but it is simply a too big workload. mabdul 05:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have protected the template. Hope that helps a bit. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Consensus is clearly in favour of the G13 proposal, and was already against this one before it was moved here. This is not a good idea in the slightest, as drafts may well be being worked on and still be deleted in this proposal. I can give you a clear example of one: a young football whom has made several professional appearances, and when the author is satisfied that they pass GNG, the article is moved into mainspace, maybe two years down the line. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Firstly, this seems like a good candidate for a Prod - there is no particular urgency to force it to be a speed deletion. Secondly, I feel that this is too specific, tied up with the particular details of how the article was created, edit etc, and has nothing to do with the actual article contents Bluap (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hate to think what it would do to the system while it was happening. We're better to get rid in smaller batches and see what happens. We might discover a rush to make silk purses out of sows' ears. There again, pigs might fly... Peridon (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and note that the proposal has changed since most of the commenters have read this. The G13 proposal has additional and, in my view, important protections that this lacks. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Applicability of G10

Does G10 extend to pages like Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Caccrop, where the recipient of a vandalism warning has lashed out at the person that warned him? Or does this have to go through MFD?—Kww(talk) 19:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should apply. There's no evidence of "long-term abuse" (2 days is not long term abuse, nor is using one account), the account is not blocked, and Josve05a needs a warning for a false "unexplained blanking of content" edit applied to Caccrop's talk page, beyond this. Caccrop probably needs blocking as well as Jaa, but that's a topic for ANI (haven't looked to see if it's been taken there yet). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed it did, as I tagged it and it went very quickly afterwards. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree at all. It was not an attack page, but rather a good-faith attempt to deal with a disruptive editor, by an editor who doesn't know Wikipedia's ways, and unfortunately chose the wrong method. Certainly the page was inappropriate, but accusing the editor of creating an "attack page" was inaccurate and unhelpful, amounting to biting a newcomer. As for Caccrop needing blocking, that is obvious, and certainly doesn't need anything as cumbersome as ~~Wikipedia:People who have nothing better to do with their time than indulge in interminable pointless arguments noticeboard/Incidents~~ - oops - I mean Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I have blocked the editor for 24 hours. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an admin agreed with me that it was an attack page, and thus deleted it, then... It was an attack page, whether it was a deliberate attack page is perhaps another matter. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If one admin agrees with me then I must be right, even when another admin disagrees with me? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I smell a redirect. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 20:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of G10 is to prevent harm to the subject, not to accuse the creator of the page of any wrongdoing. I would argue that the existence of the LTA page causes damage to the reputation of Caccrop and clearly does not belong on Wikipedia, so it is G10-able. Whether something is an "attack page" or not should be viewed from the perspective of the potential subject of the "attack" and not the potential "attacker." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose does G2 serve

I'm wondering: is there any reason why we have G2? I don't see much point in deleting test pages, if we can simply userfy it to a sandbox. This doesn't go for IP editors, but they can't create mainspace pages anyway. Am I missing something? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inexperienced editors may put tests in the article or template namespaces, and these junk articles and templates are deleted under G2. It goes right along with G1 and G3 as the basic classifications of articles that get maliciously or erroneously created and need no discussion to be wiped. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What about an article containing the content

'''Bold text'''''''Italic text''--~~~~''

What about a template containing

{{

and nothing else? What about a page with the content

can i really edit this?

That's what G2 is for. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I search the deletion log for deletion summaries citing G2 (or anything else)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, go to Special:Log/delete, display 500 results at a time, and do a text search in your browser? That's all I can think of. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I search the deletion log in this way using ctrl+f I manually change the url to whatever number I'd like, usually 5000 by adding a zero in the URL. It takes a while to load but is much more useful size. Sidenote: G2 is the most misused criterion. People use it all the time for IAR deletions without naming them as such.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I thought 5000 was only available to admins! Turns out I was wrong. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything against userfying that? If a user wants to practice with bold and italic text, we shouldn't stop them. We wouldn't delete it in a user sandbox either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Among the things I was most wrong about when I was a wee young editor was tagging G2 when it wasn't. Speedily deleting stuff out of process is fine. Disguising it as G2 is not. Even if you disagree that out of process speedy is fine, disguising it as G2 is still a bad idea. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) What about IP editors? Granted, they can't create articles, but they can create talk pages on which they might experiment. (2) Most testing users are presumably not going to care about what happens to their little test after they see it appear "live". I seem to remember that in the past some of the user warning templates for tests included the cute little phrase "Your test worked", which would probably be enough for most users. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. They won't have created a test page in main on account of them not being able to create pages in main. 2. presumably not. But maybe they do. I'm ok with a "click here to mark the page for deletion" template on their usertalk on userfying, which would tag the test page in their own userspace db-self. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This doesn't go for IP editors, but they can't create mainspace pages anyway" - but they were able to do it. (and by AfC, but I really hope that never a G2 get accepted through AfC! mabdul 14:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly mind grandfathering that in, and change G2 to "A page created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions by an editor who is not logged in to an account". (or something less awkward with the same meaning), but that seems bureaucracy for bureaucracies sake. If such a change would be acceptable but scrapping it altogether isn't, I would be mildly amazed, mildly annoyed with the bureaucracy, but still welcome the change. If there are still testpages created by IPs out there and they would be found, I wouldn't object to G6'ing them. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I most strenuously would object to deleting test pages under G6 as that is not what G6 is for. G6 is for technical and administrative deletions only, G2 is for test pages and there is no need to restrict that based on whether the creator was using an account or not. If things are getting G2ed that should be userfied then we need to either change the wording of G2 to more strongly encourage userfication (perhaps "this does not apply to any page that would be useful as a user page or personal sandbox" or something like that) and/or educate the people who are incorrectly tagging/deleting the pages. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the usecase you are talking about here is testpages created by IP's before we changed to requiring accounts for new pages, which is roughly since forever? 2005? I don't think there is any such page in main, and if there is, we certainly don't need a separate criterion for it. I still haven't seen any example of a page that couldn't just as well be userfied. I'm cool with deleting them out off process too, though it really *is* housekeeping. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prod for IP pages in mainspace would work just as well I suppose by the way. The IP issue is really a non-issue. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just about the main namespace though, so the ip issue is a distraction - either all test pages not suitable for userfication should be speedily deletable or none should be. The key question is therefore which is it? If they should be deletable there is nothing that needs doing except perhaps some stronger language about userfication; if none should be then G2 needs repealing. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is I assert that all testpages are suitable for userfication. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. People make tests to check on syntax, or similar. People make tests to see if they can actually make an article, without any intention to make one. People make pages containing what they know will not make an article, knowing it will soon be removed, just for the fun of it. For all of these, this is the most rational criterion. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two points I disagree with: First, that we don't know if anyone makes something just for the fun of it, or are genuinely testing how something works. The latter can and should be userfied as a personal testing sandbox in case they want to refer to it again, or want to continue testing, and we can't objectively distinguish the two. The second is that deleting stuff like that discourages participation, while keeping it, even in a personal sandbox conveys more of a "cool that you're testing stuff, go right ahead!" which we should strive for. Stuff intended for testing is not valuable for new articles directly, but that's not the point of userfying these kinds of pages at all. Test pages are valuable for our editors, be they present wikidians, or new ones who just want a personal sandbox to muck about with wikisyntax. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 176: / Line 176: @@
 :*I would oppose applicability to userspace.  See the similar recent discussion on a proposed U4 above at [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposed_new_criterion:_abandoned_article_drafts]].  Managing someone elses userspace can come across as rude.  Deleting their userpages is worse.  I've not seen any claim that there is a large obvious problem with drafts in userspace anything like AfC.  A particular problem is that a large proportion AfC content was created by IPs or soon-abandoned new accounts.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 03:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 **Of everything suggest I like best the one I had not thought of at all, -SmokeyJoe's preferred suggestion, of a redirect. Of course it will be sometimes used wrongly, but it is the easiest reversed of all of them.  '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 00:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
+I would like to add that this text has explain all my quires about them deleting my pages so thanks!
 == Navboxes with no articles ==