Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:03, 19 November 2018 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 18

Questions About Draft Deletion Policy

I was previously advised to take my disagreements with User:SmokeyJoe to his talk page and use this project talk page for discussion of miscellaneous deletion policy in general. However, in a current deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:RiceGum, SmokeyJoe has recommended that drafts should be banned from MFDif not failing WP:NOT, I said—SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC) and should instead be taken to something proposed to be called WP:Drafts for discussion. This proposal would be a near-complete redesign of what MFD is, since most of the discussions at MFD are of drafts, so that this proposal should be discussed here first, unless it is to be taken immediately to a more public forum such as Village pump (policy).

Drafts for Discussion? Drafts for Deletion?

First, I don’t think that we need something called Drafts for Discussion. The real question about drafts is whether to delete them, so that they should either go to Drafts for Deletion, or should continue to be discussed at Miscellany for Deletion.

Since most of the discussion here has to do with drafts, we hardly have enough non-draft traffic to justify two separate deletion subprocesses. As a result, I disagree with separating DFD from MFD. However, I am willing to consider statistics based on recent deletion discussion volume here. Perhaps we can consider a separate deletion subprocess after we figure out what the guidelines are about the deletion of drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Stripping all Drafts out of MfD would leave it little used. Getting a new XfD approved would be very hard - almost impossible. DfD has been rejected a few times as far as I know. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I agree with User:Legacypac that this is a non-starter. User:SmokeyJoe - You appear to be the proponent at this time. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
AfC attracts junk submissions and doesn’t know what to do with them. So they invite the junk submitter to edit improve and resubmit. Now there’s an affection to send them to mfd for a decision. Unfortunately, the nominators can't articulate a valid reason for deletion. Typical non-reasons are “tendentious resubmitter” (which means the author is following instructions at face value), COI, and “I don’t think this is notable”. Of courses there’s that other set that are speedy deleteable, and speedy redirectable, which should not come to mfd. WP:NMFD has already barred nominations based on notability alone. I proposed that nominations should be banned where the nominator fails to state even one WP:NOT failing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, MFD is perfectly fine to deal with drafts. No needs to subdivide into more venues that will dilute attention. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Even, User:Graeme Bartlett, when it is not a question of deletion? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Well if it is not about deletion, then don't use MFD. Use Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation or Wikipedia talk:Drafts. If it is about an individual draft you can also stick on an AFC comment or some other note at the top for others to read, but don't expect anyone much to find it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe - You asked, "Even ... when it is not a question of deletion"? Then do we need a formalized XFD process? If the question is how to improve a draft, this can be discussed on the draft's own talk page, or via AFC comments. If the question is whether to promote the draft, either "Just do it", or discuss on the draft talk page, or in a WP Project. We only need to discuss alternatives to deletion for specific drafts when deletion has been proposed for the draft. I think that I agree with User:Graeme Bartlett, but I will ask you what is the need for a formalized XFD process other than when deletion is being considered. The XFD processes for Categories and Templates are designed to cover other requests than deletion because changes to Categories and Templates can cause breakage. However, messing with drafts doesn't break anything other than the drafts. (Likewise, AFD is only for deletion, because changes to articles don't cause breakage, only changes.) Perhaps you can explain why we need a formalized XFD forum for drafts, or perhaps I have explained. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
At AfD, merge proposals are not welcome. At DRV, review of non-deletion-discussions are not much welcome. CfD TfD, RfD, these are quite different in nature in not actually deleting any content, or potential content. The issue is scope creep. Currently, MfD has a good participant:nomination ratio, but not so long ago there were many old unparticipated discussions and some were pushing for any uncontested nomination to default to delete.
The only formalisation I would like respected, as a priority, is that every MfD nomination cites a reason for deletion based on something from WP:NOT, or WP:UPNOT for userpages. Anything less invokes WP:Speedy keep #1, nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The Lack of Standards for Deletion of Drafts

Second, I think that the primary problem here in deletion discussions about drafts is that we do not have non-speedy deletion standards for drafts. We have one explicit non-rule, WP:NMFD, which says that drafts may not be nominated for deletion based on article deletion criteria such as notability. We also essentially have non-rules concerning G1 and G2. We do not otherwise have any explicit rules for the deletion of drafts, although the other general speedy criteria apply. There had apparently been near-agreement that drafts that are declined three times may be tagged for deletion, but now there appears to be disagreement there, and that is being blamed on the saccharine wording of the decline templates. (So fix the decline templates.) Although lack of notability is not a reason for nominating drafts for deletion, we have had marginal notability argued as a reason against deletion. So should we have either explicit rules for non-speedy deletion of drafts, or common sense for deletion of drafts, or a combination?

I would have preferred to see common sense standards, but I have seen that we do not have shared common sense on the deletion of drafts. (That is, different reasonable editors have different ideas as to what is reasonable.) It may be appropriate to say that we shouldn't tag drafts for slow deletion unless they have been declined at least three times, or have been resubmitted after a reviewer stated somehow that resubmission was not recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No, what’s lacking is objective standards for what drafts should be immediately and clearly REJECTED. Rejected, but not speediable, drafts should sit there for six month until G13-ed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
If I understand what User:SmokeyJoe is saying, then the problem is that Judge Stewart's rule applies. He couldn't define hard-core pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. I know what should be rejected when I see it, but I am not sure that I can define what needs to be rejected. Also, SmokeyJoe may be saying, or I may be saying in response to him, that there should be three rather than two options on AFC drafts, Accept, Decline as Needing Improvement, and Reject. I can't define what would need rejection using a set of rules, but I would be satisfied to reject (rather than declining) approximately half of all AFC drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Accept, Improve, Decline, Reject, and speedy delete G11 would be my recommended five options. Objective criteria are not nearly as hard as you seem to suggest. Reject due to a lack of any suitable sources, for example. G11 is objective. Decline due to failing any applicable notability guideline. Some, including me, believe that that “improve” should mean accept, and the reviewer does the improvement. The option to “reject” is sorely needed. Reject must mean removal of the encouragement to improve and resubmit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I can get onboard with Accept, Request Improvements, Reject and let die, and Speedy Delete for any applicable Speedy G3, G11, G12 being the most common. I believe we should speedy almost any page that is speedy delete-able. Treat it like an editorial process. It's either good, promising but needs improvement, harmless but useless, or trash. If trash let us not leave it arround to be resubmitted 10 times. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The lack of a “reject and let die” response option to stupid drafts is, I think, a major reason driving people to want to mfd stupid drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe - It appears that we are in agreement that there needs to be some sort of Reject option. I don't understand the difference between Improve and Decline. I will concur with User:Legacypac in saying that G11 is not the only speedy option, that G3 and G12 also need to be considered, as does G5. But I think there is agreement that there needs to be some sort of Reject option. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
“Improve” would be an “accept” on condition of some editorial improvements, and should be used in place of rejecting due to references not being formatted ideally. The reviewer should be able to do the improvements without doing further research. The idea here here is to lower the standard of acceptance. “Decline” means that while the topic has potential, it needs a better source or two, something that may or may not be possible, and is too much to ask any reviewer to do. If you like, think of “improve” as a subset of “accept” with less militant immediatism. But don’t anyone get distracted, what is really needed is the strong “Reject” option. Eg “In the opinion of one reviewer, this topic is not suitable for inclusion” plus option reasons, reasons usually being a notability guideline. Submissions badly failing don’t deserve a reason. —21:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)
I think that the option of Improve, as distinct from Decline, would need to be worked out in considerable detail to justify the difference, and isn't critical anyway. What is critical is to have a Reject option that is between the Decline with the saccharine encouragement and a speedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
We can get to a reject option very quickly => modify the NOT decline reason to forbid resubmission. If they resubmit we just undo the submit action. If they do it again we MfD it because now it is just annoying.
We should add a CSD option to the matching declines. If its G11 for example than don't decline telling them to fix it - actually G11 it. If we use a decline reason that matches a CSD we should mean it.
In some cases Reviewers do fix up and promote promising drafts, but sometimes it is a lot of work or a technical subject where it is best to let the creator work some more first. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
As to getting a Reject option quickly by modifying the NOT decline reason to forbid resubmission, no, no, no. I strongly disagree. The NOT criterion should not always forbid resubmission, and some of the other options should be enabled to forbid resubmission if the subject is out of the question. Conflating the NOT option and crud is a mistake. There can be submissions that are declined under a NOT option that may be fixable, such as a resume of a notable person. Please don't conflate the NOT option with Rejection. They are two different things that will sometimes overlap. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I agree with Robert here. Some WP:NOT failures can be fixable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC). Amended, some NOT failures can sometimes be fixed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
That is, some NOT failures can be fixed. Not all can. Some bio failures can be fixed. Not all can. We are saying the same thing. It is too easy to focus on NOT and overlook other important details. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Lack of Standards (More)

I see that there are three nominations on 5 April by User:Legacypac, and on two of them User:SmokeyJoe has said that there hasn't been a valid reason for deletion. As I said above, I would like to identify some standards for the deletion of drafts. SJ says that "reads like" problems can be fixed, and NPOV problems can be fixed. I will go back and ask, again, whether the fact that a subject might be capable of being fixed is a reason to keep it for six months to wait for a neutral editor to rescue it, or whether drafts by a single-purpose account should sometimes be deleted because finding a neutral champion is just unlikely. So my question to SJ is whether, while we are waiting to come up with a Reject AFC template, there are any reasons for deletion of drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I have my opinions, which are usually clear enough, but sometimes get confused by really messy cases, but I would like to know what the views of LP and of SJ, who are the two most active editors here, are. If either of you really confuse me I will go to your talk page, but I would prefer now to discuss here. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I am in strong support of countering UPEs for example, but look at WT:CSD, where I didn’t notice you, and you’ll see very strong opposition to reactive deletion. I counter-proposed quarantining. Given the input of many editors, I do not support MfD deletion for reasons that are strongly opposed as reasons for deletion. A non-deletion response is needed. Basically, every draft I see sent to MfD is either G11 eligible, or is not appropriate to delete. If, however, the AfC community could write up criteria for deletion, I would reconsider. Until then, WP:NOT is the governing policy. Legacypac in particular seems obstinate in refusing to lead his nominations with WP:NOT-based reasons, sometimes because there are not, but sometimes there are. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
    Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5_state_of_the_nation is close, but not what I am remembering, I’m still looking. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_69#ToU_violation. There is clear opposition to deletion even of TOU violating additions. SPA draft is far lower level a violation than this. Pushing for SPA resubmission as a deletion reasons seems to me to be incompatible with expressed opinions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like a reply, either here or at Draft:Pankaj Kumar, about what the draft deletion standards should be. I don't think that asking for more-or-less standards is too much. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I’m afraid that I consider that draft, by community standards, to be acceptable indefinitely in draftspace or userspace. AfC needs to find a way to deal with the repeated submissions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The Relevance of Conflict of Interest and Sockpuppetry

Third, should apparent conflict of interest be taken into account as a factor in deletion of drafts, or is there an idea that COI drafts should be kept for six months in the hope that a noble review editor will neutralize and promote them? My own thought is that the seven-day deletion discussion is long enough to see if someone is willing to assume responsibility for a draft, and that we don’t need to keep them six months. Likewise, should the fact that a draft is an autobiography (which is a type of COI draft) be considered, or do we keep autobiographies until they expire? Also, should sockpuppetry, and the creation and submission of drafts by later-blocked users be taken into account, or is seven days long enough to find a sponsor, or should drafts be kept for six months to look for a sponsor who is not a sock?

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I personally think that tagging COI drafts and drafts by subsequently blocked users (whether blocked for sockpuppetry or blocked for other reasons such as vandalism or incompetence) is a good idea, and that the seven-day deletion period is long enough to see if someone wants to try to take responsibility for the draft. This should be available regardless of whether the draft, or the whatever, was submitted once, twice, thrice, or 77 times. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • wild guess but maybe 80% of the AfC submissions are undisclosed or obvious COI. We don't prohibit COI editing so what is the value in tagging? I believe that the 7 day discussion period is sufficent for the creator to comment (which they rarely do) or someone to show the topic should be kept and fixed. Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
First, I don't think that the percentage of COI is as high as 80%, but it is high. Second, while the frequency of sockpuppetry in AFC is not in the two digits, it is not uncommon, and is probably higher than I know of, because of the socks I haven't found to wash. Third, while we don't prohibit COI editing, I would like to be able to take COI into account along with other factors in nominating drafts that, in my opinion, will never be any good.
Part of my question has to do with drafts that are "born bad", created by editors who have then been blocked (and thus the draft inherits the guilt of its father or mother), whether for sockpuppetry or for incompetence or for trolling (but sockpuppetry is the most common such reason), and I would like to establish that we don't need to Keep those just in case someone comes along to neutralize them within six months. It appears that User:Legacypac agrees that it is all right to let the "born bad" drafts be deleted. So maybe Legacypac is asking not to MFD drafts solely because of COI, but is agreeing that drafts by blocked originators should be taken to MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, I disagree with any statement or implication by User:SmokeyJoe that the sockpuppetry that is seen at AFC is in good faith due to losing passwords or not understanding about account rules. However, I also think that often assume good faith with single-purpose accounts is a stretch. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Please stop naming and paraphrasing me to make such stupid statements. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood you, but that is exactly what I thought you said about a user who had seven accounts, whom you said had three accounts, and whom you said we should be kind to if they tried to start a conversation. Did I misunderstand? I am really trying to understand what is being said by you and certain other users. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I may have part suggested an explanation for why he began socking. I think it is likely that he will one day visit that deletion discussion. He may seek redemption, request unblocking, explain his understanding of what he did. Many good editors began as bad editors. If, big if, that happens, tthen I invite him to talk to me. That is not an AGF excuse for socking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Have you watchlisted the user talk page? He can't start a conversation anywhere but on his user talk page. If you want to offer a blocked editor a chance to engage in a conversation, you can provide instructions for how to ping you to their user talk page. Otherwise, they can't get your attention. Blocked users can't post to anywhere but their own talk page. Are you saying that someone needs to offer to help them? (If so, why specifically offer to help editors who have gotten blocked for socking, as opposed to editors who merely create stupid drafts? I really am trying to understand your perspective.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
He first has to convince an admin to unblock him. Alternatively, if he appears on my talk page the conversation will be about his use of multiple accounts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we aren't yet clear. He can't appear on your talk page until he convinces an admin to unblock him. Do you mean to leave a message for him on his talk page suggesting that if he is unblocked, he can ask for your advice? That is fine if that is what you are saying. (However, what are your standards for what blocked or unblocked editors are asked to come to your talk page?) Are you talking about a conversation while he is blocked, or after he persuades an admin to unblock him? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
He first has to be unblocked, the instructions for that are on his talk page. I do sense some good faith in him, but that is not an excuse for socking. If he gets unblocked, I can give him advice. Anyone is welcome to some to my talk page for any reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy-Tagging While in MFD

I think that there is agreement that anyone who thinks that a speedy criterion is applicable to a draft that is in MFD should be tagged for speedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was thinking of editors who had not reviewed the draft while it was at AFC, and whose attention it comes to because it is then taken by a third editor to MFD. Is that a little clearer, or are you saying that every reviewer should have already reviewed every draft? I don't think that is what you meant. So do you agree that it isn't too late to consider CSD if the draft is taken by someone else to MFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Pages at any xfd are speediable. G12 always. Exceptions for most criteria are when there are valid “Keep” !votes. Yes, I think a page at MfD on its way to a SNOW Delete is G11 taggable, and I frequently do that. I like to think tha the nominator will get the hint. There may be a benefit to discussing the scope of G11, which I think includes mild promotion based on entirely unsuitable sources, and includes any page based solely on unsuitable promotional sources, typically Facebook, and LinkedIn. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no issue with applying an applicable CSD to a draft up at MfD. Different people see different things sometimes. What I might not consider an acceptable G11 based only on my tag might become a G11 after a couple other people endorse my thinking. I'm not aware of anyone that objects to this practice. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this. I have an issue with people nominating at MfD pages that clearly meet G11. People being unsure about G11 is fine, but repeated nominations of clear G11-eligible pages with no evidence that the editor even thinks of G11, despite past prompts, that's irksome. I frequently tag G11 pages I first see at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

G4

I see some drafts that are resubmissions of articles that were already deleted at AFD from mainspace. My thinking is to use a rule of reason as to whether it appears that there has been a serious effort to improve on the deleted article, although I can't see the deleted article. In cases where I have tagged a draft for G4, they have been deleted. I would give the originator one chance to explain, but would not bother to use MFD unless the case is marginal, just as it is not necessary to use AFD on a re-creation in mainspace unless the case is marginal. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We should try to avoid G4 while in draft. Times when not to do it is if the deleted main article is then draftified for improvement. However if it is very clear that drafts are not going to overcome the issue at AFD, the article is salted, and someone repeatedly posts the same content, then a G4 seems appropriate. Also many MFD's that result in a delete may not be worth following up with a G4. Hopefully the content is different and an improvement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Redirect as Alternative to Deletion

There are a few open MFD discussions in which someone has proposed redirection as an alternative to deletion. I agree that redirection is sometimes the right answer. The question is when. Obviously, if a draft title is a reasonable effort at a title for a mainspace article, or if a draft title is a reasonable alternative to an existing draft that shows hope, redirect is the right answer. There are at least two open MFD discussions where, in my opinion, the title of the nominated draft isn't a sensible draft title. In one case, the originator enthusiastically created yet another copy, with a + sign between the first and last names. That was good faith, but, to my mind, leaving that title around doesn't make sense. In another case, the draft title has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and is in my opinion useless. The thinking may be that redirects are cheap. Redirects are cheap, but only if they make sense.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I think that an editorial redirect should always be considered BEFORE mfd-ing, and if there is a reason to not redirect, state it in the nomination. Robert makes a good point about the title wanting to be meaningful. Other reasons can include: preserving a meaningful edit history; it being an easy decision with very very little downside. Even in mainspace, content forks should be fixed by redirecting one to the better, they don’t get taken to AfD, the negatives of even an unintuitive redirect is less cost than an XfD discussion in terms of consumption of volunteer time. Note that plausible typos remain a reason for a redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirects are fine. Sometimes I accept a good title to mainspace and then immediately redirect it. I'm happy to see redirects from draft deleted too as long as someone went to the effort of setting up an MfD. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
    • This practice feels a bit risky, but I support it, and am unaware of any complaints. Please let me know if anyone complains. I see zero benefit in deleting the draftspace redirects in general. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
best use of this technique is on topics that are not now ready to be an article but could or will be in the future. An unreleased movie redirected to the book or the bare framework of a page on a just released album by a notable artist, or an upcoming sporting event where the spinout topic is TOOSOON. Basically gives the next editor something to work with when the spinout is appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Reserved for More Ideas

I really don't like the way these discussions go, with people simply clamouring to be able to throw people's work into the trash with no oversight. I've personally seen drafts labelling as "this will never ever pass" been cleaned up and passed. I think it's highly arrogant, to say the least that certain editors believe they can look at a draft and say "this should be rejected and we won't allow it to be resubmitted.

Of course, they will start by only applying this to the most egregrious of spam, but eventually they wil start applying it new editor's drafts that would benefit from help from the community rather than snarky reviewers who can't be bothered to do anything but copy and paste their bitey messages and drive away eager new editors.

Since coming to this site, I've noticed that for what is supposed to be a global encyclopedia, with thousands of editors, the discussion about meta issues is absolutely dominated by around the same 10 people and what's worrying is that a lot of them don't care about helping new editors but simply want to think of new ways to delete people's work without it having to go through the generally fair jury system of XFD. Leave drafts alone, they are already avenues for them to be deleted, why are some people obsessed about needing to delete more of them?

Most new editors need support from the community and would benefit from a system that puts editors in touch with others. These kind of "HEY YOUR DRAFT GOT REJECTED AND DONT EVEN TRY TO SUBMIT IT AGAIN YOU IDIOT" approaches should go against everything this Wiki stands for.Egaoblai (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

One Conclusion

The one conclusion that I think we have consensus on is that there should be an action on AFC drafts (and sandbox submissions to AFC) that is more drastic than the current wording of Decline, which encourages improvement. What is the next step? Should we take this to the AFC talk page, to Village pump (policy), or where? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The the AFC talk page I think. There, I think the hurdle is to convince User:Primefac that there is consensus to implement specific changes. I don’t know who else is both interested and technically capable of the template editing. (I think the template-heaviness of AfC is undesirable, it prevents ordinary editors from tweaking things) —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I've taken the discussion to the AFC talk page. (I think that the template-heaviness has some advantages. When a draft is accepted, a lot of work is done behind the scenes by a script.) In any case, let's follow the discussion thee. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I looked. Thanks. I think the wheels are rolling in the right direction. Fingers crossed hoping that this makes a positive difference. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
For the record, there are (almost literally) a half-dozen half-formed discussions going on in a half-dozen places regarding improving the AFC template/process/what have you. I don't necessarily need convincing that there's a consensus for anything, I just need to be told what is the consensus. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Primefac - Yes. I am aware that some editors have great certainty as to what the consensus is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a consensus for some implementation of a standard AfC Reject! option, but the details are undefined or poorly defined. I would welcome any competent BOLD attempt to implement. Perfection is not required when improving things. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
There's consensus at WT:AFC, but at the "improving AFC" workshop our new WMF friend is running there isn't approval for it. This is what I mean when I say there are a half-dozen locations where discussions are occurring, and each one seems to be attracting a different group of people. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
Primefac, “the "improving AFC" workshop”? Do you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Decline comments workshop? I’m guess no. There’s a lot at wt:AfC, but a search for either “improving” or “workshop” is not helping me. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to this thread (which points to this page). Primefac (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Deletion of drafts

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Deletion_of_drafts about the deletion of drafts that are repeatedly submitted without improvement to AfC. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Drafts for Discussion (again) idea, maybe

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

First, a frustrated draft author, MUMACHA2203, posted this diatribe to a reviewer’s talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AKopparapu_Duo_Poets&type=revision&diff=844848859&oldid=843048356 For background, this draft author is a single-purpose account who is seeking approval of one particular draft, Draft:Kopparapu Duo Poets, and appears to be honestly single-minded (rather than conflicted or paid). Mumacha2203 has been pestering multiple reviewers to approve their draft, and getting multiple declines. They don’t seem to be willing to take advice, and they think that their English is better than it is. I wouldn’t have much sympathy with point 7 except that it does seem to capture some of the criticisms by more experienced editors of the Drafts and AFC process:

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

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

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

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

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

Closure of RFC announcement

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

WP:COIN

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

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

Speedy redirect

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

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

  • No, Speedy Redirect, like speedy delete, and speedy keep, should be read as advice to novices or a TROUT to non-novices that the page should not have been brought to MfD. It should not be considered normal and acceptable, or at least not good practice. There have always been obsessive meddling busy bodies bringing inocuous harmless things to MfD, but it’s the DraftSpace crisis with redundant drafts that has led silly people to bring these redundant drafts to MfD. Speedy keeps should not be nominated. Speedy deletes should have been CSD tagged. Speedy Redirect means the nominator needs to read WP:ATD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: This is not meant to normalize the practice, but rather to document it, just like Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I concur that speedy redirects, like speedy keeps, (and anything else speedily closed) should not have been nominated. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Documenting it is to normalise it. What would be better would be to make a prominent BEFORE section to remind would be nominators to BEFORE nomination, consider applicabel CSD criteria, consider WP:ATD policy, especially redirection of a redundant draft to the relevant article (or article section).
Where a page could be redirected, but the nominator thinks it needs deletion and not redirection, the nominator should be obliged to make a statement to that effect. Otherwise, it looks like a kneejerk reflex flick it off to MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: If the practice is not documented, how will anyone besides the mfd regulars pinged to this discussion know when a speedy redirect closure is appropriate and when one is not? Furthermore, process is important; if the community does not sanction speedy redirect as an acceptable outcome, the door is left wide open for arguable deletion reviews where mere essays have little force. This is necessary for both newbies and experienced mfd participants in posterity. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You can document in an essay. Use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Speedy redirect as I suggest at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Speedy redirect. It is the nominators who need information, not the closers. You are on your way to writing instructions to the experts on how to suck eggs. There is no need to document how to close a speedy redirect on the MfD page. It would be bloat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
On seeing a reasonable No statement, I will think about this and reply within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC).
@Robert McClenon: Just a quick ping in case you forgot about this discussion and still desire to weigh in. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this as a standard practice, obviously, since I do them so damn often (I'm sure there have actually been more than 10). I don't particularly care about trouting nominators, but I suppose having one's nomination summarily shut down as a speedy does serve as a bit of a public shaming. If it's really that important, maybe we can ping nominators when we do these, or post on their talk page to say what happened and why, and for them not to do it again? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You do very well closing, in my opinion, PMC, but an important point here is that Godsy will not be writing instructions for you, but for MfD newbies. A standard outcome of "speedy redirect" will likely reinforce the misconception that MfD is required to redirect a redundant page to the relevant article. WP:BEANS is related. Also the old principle that documentation should document best practice, not normal practice. Documenting, and criticising, normal practice can be done in essays. Instructions on process pages should be kept short and sweet, WP:TL;DR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The instructions would be approved by the community and apply to everyone, which is a good thing. If "[the oucome of an MfD] is [not generally] required to [be the] redirect[ion of] a redundant [draft] to the relevant article [when it exists]," then speedy redirects are essentially a supervote of sorts and should not be done. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
MfD is not required to redirect a redundant draft to the relevant article. MfD is not even the right venue. If a redirect discussion is required, use the talk page. Redirection is ordinary editing. WP:CNR is about redirects taking readers out of mainspace, not redirects taking editors to mainspace. Pages that can be redirected should not be brought to MfD, unless there is a statement by the nominator that redirection should not be done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: No one is claiming that. I've attempted to clarify above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I agree with you that these drafts shouldn't be MfD'd at all, and that best practice would be for whoever comes across them to just redirect them to the mainspace version. But for the situations where the nomination has already been made, given that we can't go back and un-make it, it makes sense to codify that anyone can speedily redirect them to the mainspace version and close the discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually also why can't the documentation cover all that anyway? Start the essay off with something like "when encountering a draft which duplicates an existing mainspace article or other draft, editors are encouraged to be BOLD and redirect the redundant draft to the main version. It is not necessary to nominate such redirections for MfD unless you have reason to believe that the redirection will be significantly controversial, or that the content should be deleted prior to being redirected." And then roll into the rest of what Godsy wrote about the actual process of SK-redirects. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: I think that any closure which begins with the prefix "speedy" says that the page should not have been brought to deletion discussion in the first place; that what's speedy (as opposed to "thoroughly discussed") is. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not necessarily opposed to making it "official" that a speedy redirect is well within our rights as closers and is something to keep in mind before nominating a page. If SRs are on the rise, clearly someone is missing something. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Speedy redirect is indeed a trout; that's why it's speedy. If a page should not stand alone and does not warrant deletion, you are supposed to boldly redirect it. Such a redirect can be easily reversed if it is objected to, which is why doing so does not require an MfD, unlike deletion. If a page that should have been boldly redirected is brought to MfD, it should still be boldly redirected. That's what a speedy redirect closure is doing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I don’t necessarily oppose. I don’t disagree with statements by PMC and Primefac, in particular. It may be worth looking at the outcome of what Godsy proposes. It may be quite ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk), —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think of it as a reprimand or trout, just as the recognition that some other process than MfD is appropriate. Even experienced people listing articles for deletion make occasional errors,, and the various disputes over the proper use of draft space make it even more likely that this will happen. I think that, just like the nom at AfD sometimes does a speedy keep on realizing there is no support, the nominator here as well as others seeing the listing might do this themselves in appropriate cases. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archive_14&oldid=869509160"